Is There A Testable Difference?
Devils Advocaat
significant different between the chemical elements in a living
organism, and those that exist in non-living matter.
Let me set a scenario.
In an adult human who weighs in at 70 kilos there is about 1.8 kilos
of nitrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body
Imagine we could extract that nitrogen from a human being.
And at the same time we take an equal amount of nitrogen from the
atmosphere.
Now we have two samples of nitrogen.
Present your reasoned argument and supporting evidence that shows one
is somehow alive and the other is not.
Ron O
There is actually a halflife for elements that make up your body in
terms of what you are made of. The phosophorus in your nucleic acids
isn't the same phosphorus that you had when you were 12 or 30. There
is a constant replacement.
Ron Okimoto
Dan Listermann
"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0e1b56fa-faaa-48fd...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
The one from the human is supposed to have "soul." Something that has so
far escaped measurement, but they insist is real - like leprechauns.
.
r norman
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
To be a real devil's advocate, here, you make several serious errors.
First, you claiim first that some unspecified group says that the
elements in a living thing are significantly different from non-living
matter. You never identify any particular individual who believes
such a thing or that such individuals are creationists. Then you
challenge such a person to demonstrate that the difference is that the
atoms are alive, when there is no reason to think that that is the
difference.
The fact is that the molecules and atoms that make up a living being
are, indeed, significantly different from the "same" chemicial
compound or element derived abiologically. In the case of molecules,
biologically produced chemicals show distinct chirality, with one
optical isomer either exclusively present or at least present in
overwhelming concentration compared with its congener. In the case of
atoms, the isotope ratios found in biological material often differ
significantly from the ratios found naturally in inorganic material.
hersheyh
The more usual creationist error is to define 'life' as being
something with a particular *structure* (typically a modern cell of
some sort, usually eucaryotic) rather than something with a particular
set of *functions*.
r norman
There are indeed many creationist errors, that among them. More
serious in my thinking is the rejectioin of materialistic science. But
I have never heard any serious creationist use the "vital life force"
argument separating living from non-living.
heekster
Think about it.
Once you extract the nitrogen from a human being, neither the
nitrogen, nor the human being, are still living.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <f1e3h5didb6rebl32...@4ax.com>):
So just extract _some_ nitrogen. Or oxygen. Or hydrogen. Extract, say, 1 cc
of blood or 1 cc of muscle or _something_ and take the nitrogen, oxygen, or
hydrogen out of that.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
T Pagano
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
This is absurd. And notice as usual that not one single quote from
the supposed "number of creationists" is produced. Yet another
strawman.
Regards,
T Pagano
Steven L.
It isn't just creationists who believe that human beings have an
immortal soul.
The soul is integral to the philosophies of all three Abrahamic religions.
So you're not just ridiculing creationist beliefs here.
You're ridiculing Abrahamic religions.
It's claims like yours that convince millions of Americans that science
is anti-religion.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
Well, our kidneys extract water from our bodies all the time--as urine.
A urine recycling system has been added to the International Space
Station that recycles the urine into fresh drinking water.
NASA, at least, is confident that this water from our bodies, once
purified, is chemically no different from any other water.
r norman
And you will find that the oxygen or hydrogen or carbon or whatever is
NOT the same you you get from the atmosphere!
Vend
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:56:12 -0500, heekster wrote
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:52:43 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
> > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> A number of creationists seem to be of the opinion that there is some
> >> significant different between the chemical elements in a living
> >> organism, and those that exist in non-living matter.
>
> >> Let me set a scenario.
>
> >> In an adult human who weighs in at 70 kilos there is about 1.8 kilos
> >> of nitrogen.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body
>
> >> Imagine we could extract that nitrogen from a human being.
>
> >> And at the same time we take an equal amount of nitrogen from the
> >> atmosphere.
>
> >> Now we have two samples of nitrogen.
>
> >> Present your reasoned argument and supporting evidence that shows one
> >> is somehow alive and the other is not.
>
> > Think about it.
>
> > Once you extract the nitrogen from a human being, neither the
> > nitrogen, nor the human being, are still living.
>
> So just extract _some_ nitrogen. Or oxygen. Or hydrogen. Extract, say, 1 cc
> of blood or 1 cc of muscle or _something_ and take the nitrogen, oxygen, or
> hydrogen out of that.
You can decompose and recombine urea, which, if I understand
correctly, is a quite old trick, and it is the reason vitalism is a
long discredited hypothesis.
Dan Listermann
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u8KdncvEfJfrU4zW...@earthlink.com...
what?
.
J.J. O'Shea
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<a379be2c-9e28-47a1...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
Shh. Don't tell the creationist cretins.
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
I already explained that biological processes produce a different
isotope ratio than those found by inorganic processes.
Now you explain your cryptic denial.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <ldl3h5h0ba2qgta3d...@4ax.com>):
I don't expect that there will be a different isotopic ratio for oxygen,
hydrogen, or nitrogen. Indeed, I would be very surprised if there was such a
difference for hydrogen or oxygen, and only slightly less surprised for
nitrogen.
> Now you explain your cryptic denial.
>
not cryptic at all. I said exactly what I meant. 'Nope' I said, nope I meant.
Of course, if you can show that there is a significantly different ratio of
hydrogen, oxygen, or nitrogen isotopes in the average human body from those
found in inorganic sources, please produce some support for your position.
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
Try articles like
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/January/06010601.asp
which rely on the fact that "Plants from dry areas have higher ratios
of 15N to 14N than have plants from wet areas. Similarly, plants that
use the so-called C3 photosynthetic pathway, including trees and
shrubs, have lower ratios of 13C to 12C than have plants that use the
alternative C4 photosynthetic pathway, including grasses and cereals."
Or try
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121495785/abstract
titled "Stable isotope ratio analysis as a tool to discriminate
between rainbow trout (O. mykiss) fed diets based on plant or
fish-meal proteins"
The paper
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2245713
shows that you can detect adulteration of honey with cane or corn
sugar using stable isotop ratio analysis. That, of course, is based
on the already mentioned difference between C3 and C4 plants.
Then there is the IsoAnalytical company
http://www.iso-analytical.co.uk/collagen.html
that claims "Stable isotope analysis of archaeological materials,
chiefly bone collagen, is commonly used in archaeological
investigations of ancient human occupation. Carbon and nitrogen
isotope analysis of bone collagen can aid understanding of the roles
that marine and terrestrial resources and wild and cultivated plants
played in ancient diets. And can help reveal dietary differences in
population sub-groups based on gender, social status and age." They
also say that "The stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur and
hydrogen, which occur naturally in animal tissues, are available for
use as intrinsic markers in tracking nutritional origin and
migration."
Of course you can't trust that last source because they earn their
living selling stable isotope analysis services for use in
agriculture, archaeology, ecology, environmental science, food
authenticity, forensic chemistry, geochemistry or medical research.
So you see there is no "average human body" isotope ratio because it
depends on where you have been and what you have been eating. There
are even studies using stable isotope analysis to discriminate between
breeds of lamb.
Devils Advocaat
Ah, but that is simply elements being replaced, not exactly a testable
difference of the qualities those elements possess.
Devils Advocaat
I have not questioned the existence of the soul here, nor have I made
any claims of my own.
I have merely pointed out that some creationists insist that there is
a difference between the chemical elements in a living organism, and
those that exist in non-living matter.
And I want those creationists to present reasoned arguments and
supporting evidence for their claim.
So how have I ridiculed the Abrahamic religions?
And how have I made out that science is anti-religion?
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
John Wilkins
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The soul is integral to the philosophies of all three Abrahamic religions.
Actually I dispute that. Judaism had no need for anything much like
souls until the time of the Seleucids and the Maccabees. And even now a
lot of Judaism doesn't talk much about life after death.
Islam inherited souls from the Christians, and the Christians from the
neo-Platonists.
Devils Advocaat
> fOn Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:52:43 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
>
>
>
>
>
> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >A number of creationists seem to be of the opinion that there is some
> >significant different between the chemical elements in a living
> >organism, and those that exist in non-living matter.
>
> >Let me set a scenario.
>
> >In an adult human who weighs in at 70 kilos there is about 1.8 kilos
> >of nitrogen.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body
>
> >Imagine we could extract that nitrogen from a human being.
>
> >And at the same time we take an equal amount of nitrogen from the
> >atmosphere.
>
> >Now we have two samples of nitrogen.
>
> >Present your reasoned argument and supporting evidence that shows one
> >is somehow alive and the other is not.
>
> To be a real devil's advocate, here, you make several serious errors.
> First, you claiim first that some unspecified group says that the
> elements in a living thing are significantly different from non-living
> matter. You never identify any particular individual who believes
> such a thing or that such individuals are creationists. Then you
> challenge such a person to demonstrate that the difference is that the
> atoms are alive, when there is no reason to think that that is the
> difference.
Well now, you say "unspecified group" when I have specified
"creationists", so I have specified the group.
You want names? These people seem to fly the flag of creationism, and
they certainly oppose the theory of evolution; old man joe, adman,
IlBeBauck, to name just a few.
And I get the impression from their postings on this issue in the past
that they are certain that there is some quality possessed by the
elements in living organisms that the elements in non-living things do
not possess, and that quality seems from their position to be life
itself.
>
> The fact is that the molecules and atoms that make up a living being
> are, indeed, significantly different from the "same" chemicial
> compound or element derived abiologically. In the case of molecules,
> biologically produced chemicals show distinct chirality, with one
> optical isomer either exclusively present or at least present in
> overwhelming concentration compared with its congener. In the case of
> atoms, the isotope ratios found in biological material often differ
> significantly from the ratios found naturally in inorganic material.
Molecules are not elements, they are composed of elements, and
chirality is a structural quality of the molecule, which doesn't
affect the qualities of the elements contained in that molecule.
And again the isotopic nature of an element doesn't affect the
chemical nature of that element. Carbon 12, carbon 13, and carbon 14
are all carbon. And living organisms as I understand such issues have
a tendency to absorb more of the "lighter" or more stable isotopes,
and absorb very little of the unstable ones. And those that are
unstable decay to more stable elements in time.
And as I understand this stuff, and I am no expert, atmospheric C-14
is about 1 part per trillion, and in an average human being the amount
of C-14 is only about 1 billionth of a gram.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <to24h5lqvh74p3ou6...@4ax.com>):
That would be _carbon_. And _plants_. I rather expected that there would be
different ratios for carbon... which is why I have been specifically going
with hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. And I _did_ say that it was more likely
that there would be different ratios of nitrogen than oxygen or hydrogen.
>
> Or try
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121495785/abstract
> titled "Stable isotope ratio analysis as a tool to discriminate
> between rainbow trout (O. mykiss) fed diets based on plant or
> fish-meal proteins"
At least now we're actually talking _animals_, though not mammals much less
humans.
>
> The paper
> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2245713
> shows that you can detect adulteration of honey with cane or corn
> sugar using stable isotop ratio analysis. That, of course, is based
> on the already mentioned difference between C3 and C4 plants.
Of course. And you still haven't supported your position wrt mammals, much
less humans.
>
> Then there is the IsoAnalytical company
> http://www.iso-analytical.co.uk/collagen.html
> that claims "Stable isotope analysis of archaeological materials,
> chiefly bone collagen, is commonly used in archaeological
> investigations of ancient human occupation. Carbon and nitrogen
> isotope analysis of bone collagen can aid understanding of the roles
> that marine and terrestrial resources and wild and cultivated plants
> played in ancient diets. And can help reveal dietary differences in
> population sub-groups based on gender, social status and age."
Interesting. Details would be nice. The example data that they give seem to
show a C:N ratio varying from 2.81 to 2.77... but that's just for carbon-13
and nitrogen-15, if I'm reading that table correctly, and the standard
deviations of both their test results and their control are very small. So
small, in fact, that the differences are out in the third decimal place.
Differences that small tend to get lost in the error bars of most
experiments. Yes, if proper procedures are followed results can be obtained
with sufficient accuracy that the error bars would be small enough that even
differences that small can be relied on... but doing that is... difficult. A
standard deviation of 0.03 is... rather small. That means that _68.2% of all
results falls within a band just 0.06 across_, and that _95.6% of all results
fall within a band just 0.12 across_. That's a _really small_ band,
especially when the difference band is based on samples three orders of
magnitude larger than that band. You _did_ see where I asked for
_significant_ differences in the ratios, didn't you? Are you _really_ saying
that a difference in the third or fourth or even fifth decimal place is
_significant_? Is this really the best you can do?
> They
> also say that "The stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur and
> hydrogen,
I've just _got_ to see their figures for differences in stable hydrogen
isotopes. I really do. 'Cause, frankly, I do not believe significant
differences exist and will not without actual figures. Nitrogen, that's
possible for several reasons. The differences won't be large (and the figures
your own source gives bear this out, with standard deviations in the area of
0.03 to 0.12) but I'd expect some minor changes. Accent on 'minor'. Carbon,
no problem, I'd _expect_ differences in carbon isotopes. Sulfur, again, no
problem. Hydrogen? No bloody way. That's a bridge too far, m'man. Let's see
some figures. And I see that oxygen isn't even mentioned... and for good
reason, too.
> which occur naturally in animal tissues, are available for
> use as intrinsic markers in tracking nutritional origin and
> migration."
>
> Of course you can't trust that last source because they earn their
> living selling stable isotope analysis services for use in
> agriculture, archaeology, ecology, environmental science, food
> authenticity, forensic chemistry, geochemistry or medical research.
When I see results which are just barely different from what I'd expect from
experimental noise I'd really want to see more data before stating that those
results are anything except experimental noise.
>
> So you see there is no "average human body" isotope ratio because it
> depends on where you have been and what you have been eating. There
> are even studies using stable isotope analysis to discriminate between
> breeds of lamb.
Some additional data would be nice. In particular, let's see some figures
showing what I asked for: differences in isotope ratios between organic
sources and non-organic sources for hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Hell,
I'll give you the nitrogen. Let's see hydrogen and oxygen ratios. You've
shown that there are differences between different organic sources at
different times; let's see data relating the ratios between organic (human if
possible, at least mammalian if not) sources and non-organic sources from the
same area at the same time. And data as to where and when the source material
was collected would be nice, too; I'd expect just a slight difference between
samples collected from the area around, say, Chernobyl in say, 1979 and
samples from the same area a decade later.
And, yes, there _is_ an 'average human body' ratio. That's why there's such a
thing as statistics. What I suspect is that no-one has actually compiled such
a stat. Congratulations. It appears that you have some work ahead.
AusShane
You haven't read gabriel enough then...........
VoiceOfReason
Creto
I have created nitrogen. It's better than atheist nitrogen.
/Creto
Ye Old One
<sdli...@earthlink.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:0e1b56fa-faaa-48fd...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>> A number of creationists seem to be of the opinion that there is some
>>> significant different between the chemical elements in a living
>>> organism, and those that exist in non-living matter.
>>>
>>> Let me set a scenario.
>>>
>>> In an adult human who weighs in at 70 kilos there is about 1.8 kilos
>>> of nitrogen.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body
>>>
>>> Imagine we could extract that nitrogen from a human being.
>>>
>>> And at the same time we take an equal amount of nitrogen from the
>>> atmosphere.
>>>
>>> Now we have two samples of nitrogen.
>>>
>>> Present your reasoned argument and supporting evidence that shows one
>>> is somehow alive and the other is not.
>>>
>>
>> The one from the human is supposed to have "soul." Something that has so
>> far escaped measurement, but they insist is real - like leprechauns.
>
>It isn't just creationists who believe that human beings have an
>immortal soul.
>
>The soul is integral to the philosophies of all three Abrahamic religions.
That may be so, but it doesn't make it any more real.
>
>So you're not just ridiculing creationist beliefs here.
>
>You're ridiculing Abrahamic religions.
And a few others.
>
>It's claims like yours that convince millions of Americans that science
>is anti-religion.
Then they really are profoundly ignorant.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Frank J
> significant different between the chemical elements in a living
> organism, and those that exist in non-living matter.
>
> Let me set a scenario.
>
> In an adult human who weighs in at 70 kilos there is about 1.8 kilos
> of nitrogen.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body
>
> Imagine we could extract that nitrogen from a human being.
>
> And at the same time we take an equal amount of nitrogen from the
> atmosphere.
>
> Now we have two samples of nitrogen.
>
> Present your reasoned argument and supporting evidence that shows one
> is somehow alive and the other is not.
No offense, but your post is yet another reminder of how absurd it is
to frame it as "us vs. 'the creationists'."
Many rank-and-file evolution deniers - and even many *non-deniers* -
are so clueless of science that they do think that elements and
compounds from living systems are fundamentally different from those
obtained from nonliving systems (please don't get me on the
definitions of "organic"). They have not had their "Urea moment":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_W%C3%B6hler
...and indeed many seem incapable of ever having one.
But the *anti-evolution activists* are fully aware that matter "comes
and goes" in living systems, and that the two samples of N2 you
referred to are identical in any meaningful sense. Indeed, most (all?)
of the N2 from the atmosphere sample has passed through countless
cells over the last 4 billion years, not just as dissolved N2, but as
part of compounds involved in biochemical reactions.
Many of the *anti-evolution activists* - but very few of the rank and
file evolution- deniers * and non-deniers* - also know that a living
organism is not just a mixture of compounds (& elements) but one that
is undergoing a series of *reactions* that, for lack of a better word,
"sustain" the system as the atoms and molecules "pass through." To use
an illustration from Stuart Kauffman's books, the biological system
(cell, organism, biosphere, etc.) consists of buttons (atoms and
molecules) and threads (reactions) connecting them. When the system
dies, the "threads" radically change but the set of "buttons" is at
first relatively unchanged.
Please keep this in mind when anti-evolution activists, or evolution-
deniers who simply parrot them, peddle their usual arguments-from-
incredulity, bait-and-switch between evolution and abiogenesis, etc.
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're slipping. You changed the subject line as usual, but this time
you omitted the name of the "offender" in your new subject line.
BTW, in your opinion, has any creationist ever made a strawman
argument? If so please feel free to reference it.
Frank J
I'm glad you said "*some* creationists." As you know the ones who
don't think there's a difference nevertheless do whatever they can to
keep their followers misinformed of evolution and the nature of
science.
>
> And I want those creationists to present reasoned arguments and
> supporting evidence for their claim.
>
> So how have I ridiculed the Abrahamic religions?
>
> And how have I made out that science is anti-religion?
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Steven L.
> > Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ron O
Yes, but it means that there may be no way to test for the magical
property because all atoms of the elements must possess it. The
replaced elements turn into the air that you breath and the water that
you drink. They are recycled in the biosphere and become the food
that you eat.
That would mean that you will not be able to tell the difference
because all the atoms of the same element must have the same magical
qualities that it takes to become part of life, or that there is no
magical quality and it is just chemistry. You are going to have to
find another test. People used to think that there was something
magical or out of the ordinary about oganic compounds, but then a
chemist synthsized urea in the lab. The petro chemical industry is
pretty much based on the manipulation of organic compounds.
The carbon dioxide that is expelled by volcanic activity seems to be
just as good being used for photosynthesis as the carbon dioxide
created by burning coal or oil. We even can get C14 to be
incorporated by plants and it was once atmospheric nitrogen that got
zapped by cosmic rays.
Ron Okimoto
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
You are really grasping at straws here to try to cover over your
ignorance of the subject. All you propose here are doubts that the
numbers are true when I have presented you with sources that you can
use as entry points to the literature.
The isotope ratio changes are, indeed, very very small which is why
the work has to be done exceedingly carefully by analytical chemistry
labs well experienced in the techniques and data analyses. However
merely because a number is very small does not mean it is
insignificant. You proclaim "use statistics!" when I say there is no
real "average human isotope ratio" but yet you fail to understand that
significance in statistics does not depend on whether sample
differencers are large or small in absolute terms but only whether
they are large or small compared with sampling and measurement error.
And all you can present to the contrary is doubts that measurements
can be made sufficiently accurately when this is, in fact, a well
recognized standard scientific technology.
I talked about biological processes and you insist that the
measurements be done on human tissue. Well, the simple fact is that a
pair of identical twins living in the same house but one loving sweet
foods filled with corn syrup or cane derived sugars, the other
preferring bread and pasta, will differ in isotope ratios. One
preferring to eat sushi and nori, all marine products, will differ
from the other preferring meat and potatoes. Plants and algae differ
in their isotope ratios from the air and water and soil around them
and so do the animals that eat the plants and the animals that eat the
animals that eat the plants.
You also forget that I opened my response to devil's advocaat by
taking a very explicitly states "Devil's Advocate" position. The fact
is that the isotope composition of a biological sample differs from
the isotope composition of the environment the biological organism
lives in. Humans are biological organisms. Carbon is the major
differing element but other elements differ as well including nitrogen
which was devil advocaat's original example.
So let's see your citations falsifying my claim that biological
samples differ in isotope composition from inorganic ones.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <68v4h55r1v62kvghc...@4ax.com>):
I have no doubts about the data. I merely don't see a significant difference.
Standard deviations on the order of 0.03 are very, very, VERY small.
>
> The isotope ratio changes are, indeed, very very small which is why
> the work has to be done exceedingly carefully by analytical chemistry
> labs well experienced in the techniques and data analyses. However
> merely because a number is very small does not mean it is
> insignificant. You proclaim "use statistics!" when I say there is no
> real "average human isotope ratio" but yet you fail to understand that
> significance in statistics does not depend on whether sample
> differencers are large or small in absolute terms but only whether
> they are large or small compared with sampling and measurement error.
I know this. I believe I even mentioned error bars and experimental noise
above.
> And all you can present to the contrary is doubts that measurements
> can be made sufficiently accurately when this is, in fact, a well
> recognized standard scientific technology.
And I still have the doubts.
>
> I talked about biological processes and you insist that the
> measurements be done on human tissue.
That is, after all, what I asked for in the first place. My position has not
changed.
> Well, the simple fact is that a
> pair of identical twins living in the same house but one loving sweet
> foods filled with corn syrup or cane derived sugars, the other
> preferring bread and pasta, will differ in isotope ratios.
by hw much, and is it _significant_?
> One
> preferring to eat sushi and nori, all marine products, will differ
> from the other preferring meat and potatoes. Plants and algae differ
> in their isotope ratios from the air and water and soil around them
> and so do the animals that eat the plants and the animals that eat the
> animals that eat the plants.
Again, is the difference _significant_?
>
> You also forget that I opened my response to devil's advocaat by
> taking a very explicitly states "Devil's Advocate" position.
Nope.
> The fact
> is that the isotope composition of a biological sample differs from
> the isotope composition of the environment the biological organism
> lives in. Humans are biological organisms. Carbon is the major
> differing element but other elements differ as well including nitrogen
> which was devil advocaat's original example.
Nitrogen is actually more likely to change than oxygen or hydrogen... as I've
stated on several occasions.
>
> So let's see your citations falsifying my claim that biological
> samples differ in isotope composition from inorganic ones.
>
You're taking a position, it's not up to me to prove a negative.
Friar Broccoli
C-14 is the heaviest least used and unstable (1/2 life = 5700 years)
C-12 (99%) and C-13(1%) are both stable
C-12 is preferentially taken up in photosynthesis
so if you find limestone that is say 99.5% C-12 (don't
know correct percentage) it was created by a
living system that consumed photosynthetic organisms
somewhere down the food chain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
If I remember correctly, most theologians gave up on vitalism in the
18th and 19th centuries. Some folks are a little slow at getting the
message.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Mmmmm. Interesting. Must do some more reading on that. Thanks.
--
Bob.
Desertphile
<not....@address.net> wrote:
> Subject: Another Atheist Strawman
Atheist strawman?! ROTFL!!!!!
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:52:43 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >A number of creationists seem to be of the opinion that there is some
> >significant different between the chemical elements in a living
> >organism, and those that exist in non-living matter.
> >
> >Let me set a scenario.
> >
> >In an adult human who weighs in at 70 kilos there is about 1.8 kilos
> >of nitrogen.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body
> >
> >Imagine we could extract that nitrogen from a human being.
> >
> >And at the same time we take an equal amount of nitrogen from the
> >atmosphere.
> >
> >Now we have two samples of nitrogen.
> >
> >Present your reasoned argument and supporting evidence that shows one
> >is somehow alive and the other is not.
> This is absurd. And notice as usual that not one single quote from
> the supposed "number of creationists" is produced. Yet another
> strawman.
For almost all of your death cult's history you retards believed
that stars, planets, Sol, and Luna were made up of "stuff" not
found here on Earth: it took scientists, not Creationists, to
discover the truth.
Creationism has never, in the past 50,000+ years, added anything
at all of any worth or value to humanity--- it only subtracts.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
A simple google search will produce ample research papers
demonstrating statistically significant differences in isotope ratios
from living organisms in different circumstances, isotope ratios
statistically significantly different from environmental values. End
of story. You can pretend they do not exist if you like.
Bill
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:52:43 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
>
>
>
>
>
> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >A number of creationists seem to be of the opinion that there is some
> >significant different between the chemical elements in a living
> >organism, and those that exist in non-living matter.
>
> >Let me set a scenario.
>
> >In an adult human who weighs in at 70 kilos there is about 1.8 kilos
> >of nitrogen.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body
>
> >Imagine we could extract that nitrogen from a human being.
>
> >And at the same time we take an equal amount of nitrogen from the
> >atmosphere.
>
> >Now we have two samples of nitrogen.
>
> >Present your reasoned argument and supporting evidence that shows one
> >is somehow alive and the other is not.
>
> the supposed "number of creationists" is produced. Yet another
> strawman.
Excellent, you reject vitalism. It's just a baby step, but it's a step
nonetheless.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5...@4ax.com>):
If it's so simple, why can't you provide a few examples?
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
I did. You dismissed them because you doubted that the numbers were
significant.
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
>(in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5...@4ax.com>):
>> A simple google search will produce ample research papers
>> demonstrating statistically significant differences in isotope ratios
>> from living organisms in different circumstances, isotope ratios
>> statistically significantly different from environmental values. End
>> of story. You can pretend they do not exist if you like.
>>
>
>If it's so simple, why can't you provide a few examples?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19898979
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19864410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19688921
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19662837
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647270
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19603471
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9185952
These discuss analytical techniques that you doubt exist with
sufficient accuracy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19844968
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19813280
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19714707
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19606588
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <sf5ah5tpfjbvrt9fc...@4ax.com>):
You produced _one_ example. And, yes, when the standard deviation is of the
order of 0.03, your numbers are not significant.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evn...@4ax.com>):
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5...@4ax.com>):
>
>>> A simple google search will produce ample research papers
>>> demonstrating statistically significant differences in isotope ratios
>>> from living organisms in different circumstances, isotope ratios
>>> statistically significantly different from environmental values. End
>>> of story. You can pretend they do not exist if you like.
>>>
>>
>> If it's so simple, why can't you provide a few examples?
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19898979
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19864410
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19688921
I looked at them. I suspect that you didn't. One paper, for example, said and
I quote:
"We conclude that using isotopes to estimate assimilated diets is more
complex than often appreciated and will require developing more biologically
based, time-sensitive models."
This appears to support _my_ position...
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19662837
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647270
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19603471
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9185952
>
>
> These discuss analytical techniques that you doubt exist with
> sufficient accuracy
The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and you'll
get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the problem.
You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference. Standard
deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19844968
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19813280
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19714707
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19606588
>
--
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
Your one quotation in no way supports your position. All it indicates
is that the INTERPRETATION of using isotope ratios for that purpose is
rather complicated. It in NO way implies that the isotope ratios are
not valid.
You keep repeating your silliness that a standard deviation of 0.03
can not be significant in your opinion. That is a totally meaningless
statement. What is the difference if values compared with the
standard deviation? You apparently are unable to read, otherwise you
would have noticed the paper that says: "Isotope ratio mass
spectrometry (IRMS) and multicollector inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) are highly important techniques that can
provide forensic evidence that otherwise would not be available.
MC-ICP-MS has proved to be a very powerful tool for measuring high
precision and accuracy isotope amount ratios. " The abstract does not
give numerical values, but both high precision anhd high accuracy does
say something. And using the results for forensic evidence is totally
impossible were they not statistically significant.
You are simply ignorant of the technique and completely unwilling to
educate yourself about it.
I claimed that biological stable isotope ratios deviate from
non-biological samples and provide a large number of papers using
stable isotope ratio measurments to detect interesting and useful
biological results. Yes, the technique is difficult and requires
careful analysis. But the differences still exist whether you like it
or not. I don't know what else I can say. There is no use
continuing.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <mguah5hqmr4qbblr4...@4ax.com>):
That would, indeed, be my opinion.
> That is a totally meaningless
> statement.
That would be your opinion.
> What is the difference if values compared with the
> standard deviation?
When the base value is in the tens, and the standard deviation is in the
hundredths, that's a deviation out in the third and fourth decimal place.
Under 1%, usually under 0.1%. That is not a significant difference.
> You apparently are unable to read, otherwise you
> would have noticed the paper that says: "Isotope ratio mass
> spectrometry (IRMS) and multicollector inductively coupled plasma mass
> spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) are highly important techniques that can
> provide forensic evidence that otherwise would not be available.
> MC-ICP-MS has proved to be a very powerful tool for measuring high
> precision and accuracy isotope amount ratios. "
I read it. I have never said that you can't get very good accuracy. What I
have said is that you have not shown that your results are _significant_. you
still haven't. You may continue to shout, if you wish. Increased volume will
not persuade me. Showing that your numbers are significant will. Produce
something to that effect and your position is upheld. You have not, as yet,
produced something to that effect.
> The abstract does not
> give numerical values,
Golly gee whilikers. Given that I specifically asked for such values, why did
you bother to quite it?
> but both high precision anhd high accuracy does
> say something. And using the results for forensic evidence is totally
> impossible were they not statistically significant.
>
> You are simply ignorant of the technique and completely unwilling to
> educate yourself about it.
You may continue to shout. It does not persuade.
>
> I claimed that biological stable isotope ratios deviate from
> non-biological samples and provide a large number of papers using
> stable isotope ratio measurments to detect interesting and useful
> biological results.
You have not demonstrated that the results are significant.
> Yes, the technique is difficult and requires
> careful analysis. But the differences still exist whether you like it
> or not. I don't know what else I can say. There is no use
> continuing.
Producing some _significant_ results would help.
hersheyh
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean, not a
measure of statistical significance between two population means. A
small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
that differ will show a statistically significant difference. I don't
even have to read the publications to know you don't know what you are
jabbering about.
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
Stupidity can be excused -- there is nothing you can do about it.
Ignorance, on the other hand, is inexcusable -- you can make an effort
and learn something. I truly do not know whether you are stupid or
ignorant. Pick one (or both, if you prefer).
"delta 15N values in red sea bream, black porgy and Japanese sea bass
were significantly different between the Sea of Japan, the Inland Sea
and the Pacific Ocean (one-way ANOVA p<0.05, followede by Scheffe's
post hoc test)."
http://www.alexandriaarchive.org/icaz/pdf/poster_ishimaru_etal.pdf
Of course, that is a poster presentation, not a refereed publication
so you will no doubt reject it.
So what about:
"The d15N values obtained for each of the five stations were averaged
to obtain a mean value for each marsh and species. For each species,
ANOVA and least squares means post hoc tests were used to evaluate
differences among marshes, using the analytical software program SAS,
Version 8.1 (SAS 2000). ...Another objective of this study was to
determine adequate sample sizes for stable isotope analysis. If
nitrogen isotopes are to be used in long-term monitoring of estuarine
systems, it is important to establish the number of samples necessary
to detect change in marshes over time. Sample size is related to the
power of a statistical test. Statistical power is 1 - �, where � is
the probability of falsely accepting the null hypothesis (Type II
error; Murphy and Myors 1998). Power is a function of the size of an
effect in the population, the sensitivity of the statistical test, and
sample size (Murphy and Myors 1998). In this study, the effect size is
the difference in d15N values between two marshes, expressed in units
of standard deviation. A priori tests of statistical power were used
to determine adequate sample size to determine an expected effect
size. Two-tailed tests were used since either an increase or decrease
in d15N from one site to another would be of interest in this study.
The software package GPOWER (Faul and Erdfelder 1992) was used to
perform these analyses."
"Mean d15N values for juvenile fish ranged from 8.5� at Hatches
Harbor, Massachusetts, to 14.3� at Jamaica Bay, New York. The d15N
values of adult fish increased significantly along a gradient of
residential development (R2 = 0.7, P = 0.05), but the relationship
between juvenile Fundulus and residential development was not
significant (R2 = 0.6, P = 0.06)....Adult Fundulus were the only study
organisms found to increase significantly with residential development
(R2 = 0.7, P = 0.05)....Regression analysis of the d15N values of
Fundulus, Spartina, and Geukensia from the literature and this study
demonstrated significant relationships between these species and
residential development, but with low R2 values indicating low
predictive ability (Fig. 2a�c; Prairie 1996). "
"The mean standard deviation for Spartina samples was 0.75. The
results of a two-tailed a priori power test with power = 0.80, a =
0.05, and a standard deviation of 0.75 showed that a 1.0� difference
could be detected using a sample size of 10. With the sample size of
10, one could expect to detect a difference of 1.0� or larger between
two groups of Spartina samples. Increasing the sample size would allow
for the detection of smaller differences between samples (Table 3). If
the sample size were increased to 37, one could expect to detect a
difference of 0.5� with high statistical power. Because the precision
of the mass spectrometer is �0.3�, it is possible that a measured
difference between two samples smaller than 0.3� might be more
reflective of the accuracy of the instrument than actual ecological
change."
Rebecca O. Bannon, Charles T. Roman (2008)
USING STABLE ISOTOPES TO MONITOR ANTHROPOGENIC NITROGEN INPUTS TO
ESTUARIES.
Ecological Applications: Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 22-30.
You have to pay to get full text.
So there you have it. An ecological study with full statistical
disclosure and analysis including statements of some results that are
not statistically significant along with others that are.
Note: the lack of significance is a result of the BIOLOGY, NOT the
analytical technique!!!
Once again -- stupid or ignorant -- which is it to be?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<15b371d7-af5a-4049...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 1, 2:16ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
>> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>> A simple google search will produce ample research papers
>>>>> demonstrating statistically significant differences in isotope ratios
>>>>> from living organisms in different circumstances, isotope ratios
>>>>> statistically significantly different from environmental values. ï¿œEnd
>>>>> of story. ï¿œYou can pretend they do not exist if you like.
>>
>>>> If it's so simple, why can't you provide a few examples?
>>
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19898979
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19864410
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19688921
>>
>> I looked at them. I suspect that you didn't. One paper, for example, said
>> and
>> I quote:
>>
>> "We conclude that using isotopes to estimate assimilated diets is more
>> complex than often appreciated and will require developing more biologically
>> based, time-sensitive models."
>>
>> This appears to support _my_ position...
>>
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19662837
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647270
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19603471
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9185952
>>
>>> These discuss analytical techniques that you doubt exist with
>>> sufficient accuracy
>>
>> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
>> you'll
>> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the problem.
>> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
>> Standard
>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>
> A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
Yes, it is.
> not a
> measure of statistical significance between two population means.
Correct.
> A
> small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
> that differ will show a statistically significant difference. I don't
> even have to read the publications to know you don't know what you are
> jabbering about.
errmm... I suspect that you're missing my point.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <vbhbh5p6bdb9oetlb...@4ax.com>):
Shouting again, but not supporting your position.
>
> "delta 15N values in red sea bream, black porgy and Japanese sea bass
> were significantly different between the Sea of Japan, the Inland Sea
> and the Pacific Ocean (one-way ANOVA p<0.05, followede by Scheffe's
> post hoc test)."
> http://www.alexandriaarchive.org/icaz/pdf/poster_ishimaru_etal.pdf
>
> Of course, that is a poster presentation, not a refereed publication
> so you will no doubt reject it.
You actually gave me what I had asked for: data showing significant figures
(well, not so significant, but as close as you're ever likely to get, anyway;
hint: there was a reason why I was willing to grant nitrogen figures leeway I
was unwilling to grant oxygen or hydrogen...) from a particular area and from
one particular time set. Now, was that so difficult?
Which is something you failed to present before.
>
> Note: the lack of significance is a result of the BIOLOGY, NOT the
> analytical technique!!!
>
> Once again -- stupid or ignorant -- which is it to be?
You really must do something about your blood pressure.
hersheyh
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:21:49 -0500, hersheyh wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 2:16�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
> >> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
[snip]
>
> >> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
> >> you'll
> >> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the problem.
> >> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
> >> Standard
> >> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>
> > A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > not a
> > measure of statistical significance between two population means.
>
> Correct.
>
> > �A
> > small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
> > that differ will show a statistically significant difference. �I don't
> > even have to read the publications to know you don't know what you are
> > jabbering about.
>
> errmm... I suspect that you're missing my point.
>
Am I wrong in thinking that you, just above, claimed that "Standard
deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant." Since
you agree that standard deviations are measures of spread around a
mean and not a measure of statistical significance in and of itself,
can you tell me what you *thought* you were saying when you claimed
that a standard deviation (regardless of the number associated with
it) is "not significant"? What, exactly, would make any standard
deviation 'statistically significant'?
[snip]
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<cee364ce-91e8-4c9a...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 2, 12:30ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:21:49 -0500, hersheyh wrote
>> (in article
>> <15b371d7-af5a-4049-ae83-0a16e5ec3...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2:16ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
>
> [snip]
>>
>>>> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
>>>> you'll
>>>> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the
>>>> problem.
>>>> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
>>>> Standard
>>>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>>
>>> A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>> not a
>>> measure of statistical significance between two population means.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> ï¿œA
>>> small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
>>> that differ will show a statistically significant difference. ï¿œI don't
>>> even have to read the publications to know you don't know what you are
>>> jabbering about.
>>
>> errmm... I suspect that you're missing my point.
>>
> Am I wrong in thinking that you, just above, claimed that "Standard
> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant."
That is correct, I did... but you have to look at the original numbers to see
why. The original numbers were three to four orders of magnitude larger than
the standard deviation. Perhaps I should have said 'standard deviations of
0.03 for these numbers are not significant.
You really might want to look at the numbers in question.
> Since
> you agree that standard deviations are measures of spread around a
> mean and not a measure of statistical significance in and of itself,
> can you tell me what you *thought* you were saying when you claimed
> that a standard deviation (regardless of the number associated with
> it) is "not significant"? What, exactly, would make any standard
> deviation 'statistically significant'?
Look at the dataset from which that standard deviation was drawn. If you have
data in the range 20-40, and the variances are down in the range 0.03, then
the differences in the dataset are very, very small compared to data... and
that means that unless you are very careful experimental error will outweigh
any actual differences. And even if you are very careful, the differences are
so small that there is, simply, no significant difference between one item
and any other item in the dataset.
And, also... way back when, he _asserted_ without providing one stick of
supporting data that certain things were one particular way, and was most
upset with my 'cryptic denial'. And it took considerable effort to get him to
even pretend to support his position. At one point he tried to put it on _me_
to prove a negative!
Quote:
> So let's see your citations falsifying my claim that biological
> samples differ in isotope composition from inorganic ones.
>
Is it only creationists who must support their positions?
r norman
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:17:10 -0500, hersheyh wrote
>(in article
><cee364ce-91e8-4c9a...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Dec 2, 12:30�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:21:49 -0500, hersheyh wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <15b371d7-af5a-4049-ae83-0a16e5ec3...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 1, 2:16�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>>> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>>>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
>>>>> you'll
>>>>> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the
>>>>> problem.
>>>>> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
>>>>> Standard
>>>>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>>>
>>>> A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>> not a
>>>> measure of statistical significance between two population means.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>> �A
>>>> small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
>>>> that differ will show a statistically significant difference. �I don't
You simply have absolutely no understanding of the meaning of the
numbers in question. My last post had the numbers that show that the
standard deviations are much smaller than the differences between the
means of the values being tested.
hersheyh
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:17:10 -0500, hersheyh wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 12:30�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:21:49 -0500, hersheyh wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <15b371d7-af5a-4049-ae83-0a16e5ec3...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>>> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>>>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>>> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
> >>>> you'll
> >>>> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the
> >>>> problem.
> >>>> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
> >>>> Standard
> >>>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>
> >>> A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
>
> >> Yes, it is.
>
> >>> not a
> >>> measure of statistical significance between two population means.
>
> >> Correct.
>
> >>> small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
> >>> even have to read the publications to know you don't know what you are
> >>> jabbering about.
>
> >> errmm... I suspect that you're missing my point.
>
> > Am I wrong in thinking that you, just above, claimed that �"Standard
> > deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant."
>
> That is correct, I did... but you have to look at the original numbers to see
> why. The original numbers were three to four orders of magnitude larger than
> the standard deviation. Perhaps I should have said 'standard deviations of
> 0.03 for these numbers are not significant.
And what are the numbers you are looking at? You know, the mean that
is flanked +/- by the sd. This still is not making any sense at all.
One could have any number for the mean and have the sd be +/- 0.03 in
the somethings the mean measures. And if you had one mean of 1
something +/- 0.03 somethings and another mean of 1000 (3 orders of
magnitude larger) somethings +/- 0.03 somethings, the two means would
be, statistically, *highly* significantly different from each other.
Let me repeat: A standard deviation, by itself, cannot be
'significant'. Statistical significance requires an examination of
two populations on some measure.
> You really might want to look at the numbers in question.
You might want to present a meaningful sentence rather than one that
is gibberish as written.
> > �Since
> > you agree that standard deviations are measures of spread around a
> > mean and not a measure of statistical significance in and of itself,
> > can you tell me what you *thought* you were saying when you claimed
> > that a standard deviation (regardless of the number associated with
> > it) is "not significant"? �What, exactly, would make any standard
> > deviation 'statistically significant'?
>
> Look at the dataset from which that standard deviation was drawn. If you have
> data in the range 20-40, and the variances are down in the range 0.03, then
> the differences in the dataset are very, very small compared to data...
Depends. Are you claiming that you cannot get an sd of 0.03 whatevers
(it really would help if you specified what the units are) from this
data set (wherever it is) because the data are too dispersed to give
an sd of 0.03? Are you claiming that the authors miscalculated their
sd? I have no idea what you are claiming here.
> and
> that means that unless you are very careful experimental error will outweigh
> any actual differences. And even if you are very careful, the differences are
> so small that there is, simply, no significant difference between one item
> and any other item in the dataset.
Again, your ability to explain what you think you are saying is odd,
to say the least. Be more explicit about what is being measured and
what the sd is an sd of. Include units. Learn to speak statistics.
> And, also... way back when, he _asserted_ without providing one stick of
> supporting data that certain things were one particular way, and was most
> upset with my 'cryptic denial'.
As I am upset with your 'cryptic' language. You are writing gibberish
here and apparently pretending it is supposed to have meaning.
> And it took considerable effort to get him to
> even pretend to support his position. At one point he tried to put it on _me_
> to prove a negative!
>
> Quote:
>
> > So let's see your citations falsifying my claim that biological
> > samples differ in isotope composition from inorganic ones.
It is a fact that living plants, including algae, preferentially take
up C12 rather than C13 when C is not limiting. In fact, because C3
and C4 plants have a slightly different preference, one can use that
to identify the types of plants eaten by herbivores.
> Is it only creationists who must support their positions?
First you have to have a meaningful position to support. I consider
what you have written here to be meaningless gibberish *on its face*.
If you can correct that, then we can determine if you have a
meaningful position.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <b2gdh5t8jll09nn0u...@4ax.com>):
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:49:54 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:17:10 -0500, hersheyh wrote
>> (in article
>> <cee364ce-91e8-4c9a...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 12:30ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:21:49 -0500, hersheyh wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <15b371d7-af5a-4049-ae83-0a16e5ec3...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2:16ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>>>> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
>>>>>> you'll
>>>>>> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
>>>>>> Standard
>>>>>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>>>>
>>>>> A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>>
>>>>> not a
>>>>> measure of statistical significance between two population means.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>>> ï¿œA
>>>>> small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
>>>>> that differ will show a statistically significant difference. ï¿œI don't
Yes, they did. But they also had multiple datasets. What's not significant
with _one_ dataset often can be significant with multiple sets, if the trend
is similar. You gave me what I'd asked for... finally. Even if the numbers
were low. Very low.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<ab3d2736-a769-4017...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 2, 12:49ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:17:10 -0500, hersheyh wrote
>> (in article
>> <cee364ce-91e8-4c9a-bda8-541103f3a...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 12:30ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:21:49 -0500, hersheyh wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <15b371d7-af5a-4049-ae83-0a16e5ec3...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2:16ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>>>> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
>>>>>> you'll
>>>>>> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
>>>>>> Standard
>>>>>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>>
>>>>> A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
>>
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>>>> not a
>>>>> measure of statistical significance between two population means.
>>
>>>> Correct.
>>
>>>>> ï¿œA
>>>>> small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
>>>>> that differ will show a statistically significant difference. ï¿œI don't
>>>>> even have to read the publications to know you don't know what you are
>>>>> jabbering about.
>>
>>>> errmm... I suspect that you're missing my point.
>>
>>> Am I wrong in thinking that you, just above, claimed that ￜ"Standard
>>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant."
>>
>> That is correct, I did... but you have to look at the original numbers to
>> see
>> why. The original numbers were three to four orders of magnitude larger than
>> the standard deviation. Perhaps I should have said 'standard deviations of
>> 0.03 for these numbers are not significant.
>
> And what are the numbers you are looking at? You know, the mean that
> is flanked +/- by the sd. This still is not making any sense at all.
> One could have any number for the mean and have the sd be +/- 0.03 in
> the somethings the mean measures. And if you had one mean of 1
> something +/- 0.03 somethings and another mean of 1000 (3 orders of
> magnitude larger) somethings +/- 0.03 somethings, the two means would
> be, statistically, *highly* significantly different from each other.
>
> Let me repeat: A standard deviation, by itself, cannot be
> 'significant'. Statistical significance requires an examination of
> two populations on some measure.
>
>> You really might want to look at the numbers in question.
>
> You might want to present a meaningful sentence rather than one that
> is gibberish as written.
>
>>> ï¿œSince
>>> you agree that standard deviations are measures of spread around a
>>> mean and not a measure of statistical significance in and of itself,
>>> can you tell me what you *thought* you were saying when you claimed
>>> that a standard deviation (regardless of the number associated with
>>> it) is "not significant"? ï¿œWhat, exactly, would make any standard
>>> deviation 'statistically significant'?
>>
>> Look at the dataset from which that standard deviation was drawn. If you
>> have
>> data in the range 20-40, and the variances are down in the range 0.03, then
>> the differences in the dataset are very, very small compared to data...
>
> Depends. Are you claiming that you cannot get an sd of 0.03 whatevers
> (it really would help if you specified what the units are) from this
> data set (wherever it is) because the data are too dispersed to give
> an sd of 0.03? Are you claiming that the authors miscalculated their
> sd? I have no idea what you are claiming here.
>
>> and
>> that means that unless you are very careful experimental error will outweigh
>> any actual differences. And even if you are very careful, the differences
>> are
>> so small that there is, simply, no significant difference between one item
>> and any other item in the dataset.
>
> Again, your ability to explain what you think you are saying is odd,
> to say the least. Be more explicit about what is being measured and
> what the sd is an sd of. Include units. Learn to speak statistics.
>
>> And, also... way back when, he _asserted_ without providing one stick of
>> supporting data that certain things were one particular way, and was most
>> upset with my 'cryptic denial'.
>
> As I am upset with your 'cryptic' language. You are writing gibberish
> here and apparently pretending it is supposed to have meaning.
I do apoligise for not making myself clear.
el cid
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:32:12 -0500, r norman wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:49:54 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:17:10 -0500, hersheyh wrote
> >> (in article
>
> >>> On Dec 2, 12:30�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:21:49 -0500, hersheyh wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <15b371d7-af5a-4049-ae83-0a16e5ec3...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>>>>> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>>>>>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>>>> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
> >>>>>> you'll
> >>>>>> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the
> >>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
> >>>>>> Standard
> >>>>>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>
> >>>>> A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
>
> >>>> Yes, it is.
>
> >>>>> not a
> >>>>> measure of statistical significance between two population means.
>
> >>>> Correct.
>
> >>>>> small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
In this threadlet it has been hard to grasp what the heck you think.
quoting standard deviations rather than coefficients of variation
makes
for a bad start. Then there seemed to be some hidden assumptions that
the reported s.d. were not the whole picture but you said so little it
was hard to figure out what you were on about.
This is really sad given that isotope ratio measurements are typically
done with a great deal of sophistication and statistical rigor. In
fact,
the statistics behind isotope ratio measurements often are
sophisticated
beyond the keen of many statisticians, mostly because they correct
for real, actual, verifiable sources of artifacts.
So what's your beef here anyway?
hersheyh
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:36:18 -0500, hersheyh wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 12:49 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:17:10 -0500, hersheyh wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <cee364ce-91e8-4c9a-bda8-541103f3a...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:21:49 -0500, hersheyh wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <15b371d7-af5a-4049-ae83-0a16e5ec3...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:38:57 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>>>>> (in article <np9ah5plrqt9e7evnfi6sn1iet7erc1...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:10 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:03:09 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>>>>>>> (in article <6bd6h5tr0bj8i1hh5hf7lnqodihirdk...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>>>> The accuracy ain't the problem. Spend enough time and enough money and
> >>>>>> you'll
> >>>>>> get the accuracy. It's the _significance_ of the results that's the
> >>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>> You have _still_ not shown that there is a _significant_ difference.
> >>>>>> Standard
> >>>>>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant.
>
> >>>>> A standard deviation is a measure of spread around a mean,
>
> >>>> Yes, it is.
>
> >>>>> not a
> >>>>> measure of statistical significance between two population means.
>
> >>>> Correct.
>
> >>>>> small standard deviation, in fact, makes it more likely that two means
> >>>>> even have to read the publications to know you don't know what you are
> >>>>> jabbering about.
>
> >>>> errmm... I suspect that you're missing my point.
>
> >>> deviations on the order of 0.03 simply are not significant."
>
> >> That is correct, I did... but you have to look at the original numbers to
> >> see
> >> why. The original numbers were three to four orders of magnitude larger than
> >> the standard deviation. Perhaps I should have said 'standard deviations of
> >> 0.03 for these numbers are not significant.
>
> > And what are the numbers you are looking at? You know, the mean that
> > is flanked +/- by the sd. This still is not making any sense at all.
> > One could have any number for the mean and have the sd be +/- 0.03 in
> > the somethings the mean measures. And if you had one mean of 1
> > something +/- 0.03 somethings and another mean of 1000 (3 orders of
> > magnitude larger) somethings +/- 0.03 somethings, the two means would
> > be, statistically, *highly* significantly different from each other.
>
> > Let me repeat: A standard deviation, by itself, cannot be
> > 'significant'. Statistical significance requires an examination of
> > two populations on some measure.
>
> >> You really might want to look at the numbers in question.
>
> > You might want to present a meaningful sentence rather than one that
> > is gibberish as written.
>
> >>> you agree that standard deviations are measures of spread around a
> >>> mean and not a measure of statistical significance in and of itself,
> >>> can you tell me what you *thought* you were saying when you claimed
> >>> that a standard deviation (regardless of the number associated with
I would prefer a simple correction of your language (i.e.,
clarification of what you mean) to an apology. You know. Simple
things like using actual units if what you are describing is a
standard deviation. Things like means with their units. OTOH, if you
are describing a correlation coefficient rather than a standard
deviation or the variance around a correlation coefficient, you could
use the correct terms.
grisha
living organisms have ability to perform a nuclear reaction and
transform one isotope to the other
or
organic matter has different isotope composition than environment?
Thanks, Grisha
On Nov 29, 6:08�am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:35:21 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
>
>
> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:14:23 -0500, r norman wrote
> >(in article <to24h5lqvh74p3ou6ouko5v8joa2cqr...@4ax.com>):
>
> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:12:52 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:01:20 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>> (in article <ldl3h5h0ba2qgta3dsn0v0rvpecfobe...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:56:36 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:43:09 -0500, r norman wrote
> >>>>> (in article <mbk3h5tbt7ge65o535mpaj9vmbi36gg...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:05:50 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:56:12 -0500, heekster wrote
> >>>>>>> (in article <f1e3h5didb6rebl32jm8rl8pshlb1ms...@4ax.com>):
> >especially when the difference band is based on samples three orders of
> >Some additional data would be nice. In particular, let's see some figures
> >showing what I asked for: differences in isotope ratios between organic
> >sources and non-organic sources for hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Hell,
> >I'll give you the nitrogen. Let's see hydrogen and oxygen ratios. You've
> >shown that there are differences between different organic sources at
> >different times; let's see data relating the ratios between organic (human if
> >possible, at least mammalian if not) sources and non-organic sources from the
> >same area at the same time. And data as to where and when the source material
> >was collected would be nice, too; I'd expect just a slight difference between
> >samples collected from the area around, say, Chernobyl in say, 1979 and
> >samples from the same area a decade later.
>
> >And, yes, there _is_ an 'average human body' ratio. That's why there's such a
> >thing as statistics. What I suspect is that no-one has actually compiled such
> >a stat. Congratulations. It appears that you have some work ahead.
>
> You are really grasping at straws here to try to cover over your
> ignorance of the subject. �All you propose here are doubts that the
> numbers are true when I have presented you with sources that you can
> use as entry points to the literature.
>
> The isotope ratio changes are, indeed, very very small which is why
> the work has to be done exceedingly carefully by analytical chemistry
> labs well experienced in the techniques and data analyses. �However
> merely because a number is very small does not mean it is
> insignificant. �You proclaim "use statistics!" when I say there is no
> real "average human isotope ratio" but yet you fail to understand that
> significance in statistics does not depend on whether sample
> differencers are large or small in absolute ...
>
> read more �
r norman
wrote:
>I am a bit confuse with your statement. Do you mean that
>
>living organisms have ability to perform a nuclear reaction and
>transform one isotope to the other
>or
>organic matter has different isotope composition than environment?
>
Certainly no nuclear reaction is involved. It is just that biological
processes preferentially use one isotope over the other. In the
lighter elements like Nitrogen and Carbon, the differences in atomic
mass are significant enough to cause small differences in rates of
diffusion and small differences in energetics of atomic and molecular
collisions. That is the basis for the difference. The main changes
are in nitrogen fixation of atmospheric N2 into organic amines (and
other compounds) by bacteria and in carbon fixation, i.e.
photosynthesis converting CO2 into carbohydrates by plants and other
autotrophs. There are differences in Sulfur uptake too.
grisha
why it is important. I am afraid it was lost in the heat of
discussion.
Thanks, Grisha
On Dec 4, 3:58�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:32:59 -0800 (PST), grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com>
r norman
wrote:
>Got it. And now is probably good time to repeat your initial point,
>why it is important. I am afraid it was lost in the heat of
>discussion.
>
The original point was not important but was a "devil's advocate"
position raising up a rather trivial technical exception to the claim
that biological material (atoms, to be specific) is identical to
non-biological. The real, serious subject is the absence of an "vital
life force" separating animate from inanimate. That biological
material may have very small (but still significant) stable isotope
ratios different from their environment can be useful in some legal,
ecological, and medical applications but little else except to provoke
unnecessarily prolonged discussion on this news group.
el cid
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:32:59 -0800 (PST), grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I am a bit confuse with your statement. 锟紻o you mean that
>
> >living organisms have ability to perform a nuclear reaction and
> >transform one isotope to the other
> >or
> >organic matter has different isotope composition than environment?
>
> processes preferentially use one isotope over the other. 锟絀n the
> lighter elements like Nitrogen and Carbon, the differences in atomic
> mass are significant enough to cause small differences in rates of
> diffusion and small differences in energetics of atomic and molecular
> are in nitrogen fixation of atmospheric N2 into organic amines (and
> other compounds) by bacteria and in carbon fixation, i.e.
> photosynthesis converting CO2 into carbohydrates by plants and other
For those who deeply care, wiki has a reasonable starting article on
"kinetic isotope effect".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect
I'd further suggest a large body of work by the late Jeremy Knowles.
His papera are generally of high quality and well written, something
I can say about an ever reducing fraction of new papers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8068695
Primary and secondary kinetic isotope effects as probes of the
mechanism of yeast enolase.
Anderson SR, Anderson VE, Knowles JR.
Biochemistry. 1994 Aug 30;33(34):10545-55