More useless information on the origins of life.
Nashton
http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evolution/1481992/story.html
I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now,
there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
on other planets.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
(yawn)
No one cares what you think, Nash.
(shrug)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Devils Advocaat
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>
Its amazing how someone can read such a brief article as this and
manage to get the wrong end of the stick entirely.
It wasn't referring to the origin of life, but the event that
preceeded the formation of the first multicellular organisms.
Unless of course you personally don't count single-celled organisms as
life.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>
> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus.
We don't know if there is life on Mars or Venus or not.
There may well be life on Mars. It seems highly unlikely that there is
any life on Venus, and certainly not in a form with much similarity to
earth's life, but the simple fact is that we just don't know.
> Granted, the
> environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
> life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment.
Not in an environment in which water is solid as on Mars, or vapour,
as on Venus.
> Come on now,
> there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
> this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
> transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
> membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
Centuries of scientific research have not discovered any such magic
goo. There is no difference between the atoms in living organism and
those which are not in living organisms.
>
> There is science and there is *real* science.
No. There is science. End of story.
> This is definitely *not*
> real science.
Well, the scientists who study such things think that it is. What do
you know that they don't?
> OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
> can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
> ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
> further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
> only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
> on other planets.
However, as the environmental conditions on other planets are very
different from those on earth, we certainly won't find life identical
to life on earth.
The simple fact is that we don't know if there is life anywhere else
in the solar system. That is not a reason to stop looking.
RF
wf3h
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>
> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
> environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
> life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now,
> there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
> this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
> transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
> membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
>
> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..
well, thank you, thank you...glad to see you're a fan....
whatever (that
> can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
> ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
> further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
> only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
> on other planets.
the earth was once lifeless. now it has life. so yes, the LOGICAL
conclsuion is that the laws of chemistry do allow, under certain
conditions, the emergence of life
of course, we could fall back on 'god did it'....but that idea has no
explanatory power at all. it was used for earthquakes, disease,
planetary motion....
and it failed every time. always. but creationists are losers, so love
failed ideas.
Boikat
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>
> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
> environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
> life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment.
No. Who made that claim?
> Come on now,
> there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
> this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
> transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
> membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
The clueless has spoken.
>
> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
> can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
> ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
> further proof that life is an emergent property of matter,
No. More than likely, it will be jumped on by people who will attempt
to educate you, and point out your erronious conclusions, assumptions,
and point out that you are an ignorant twit.
> but could
> only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
> on other planets.
Your ingenious conclusion is mitigated by your ignornance. Life
equires certain conditions. The mere existance of matter is not
enough. Next time you attempt to reason, either try engaging your
brain, or reconsider.
Boikat
Frank J
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>
Nice try, but as Lloyd Bentzen would say, "You're no Muriel Spinbill."
Perplexed in Peoria
>
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evolution/1481992/story.html
>
> I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
> environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
> life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now,
> there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
> this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
> transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
> membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
>
> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> real science.
No it is not. It is pop science - watered down press-release science.
Here is a slightly more coherent pop-science take on the same
research - still based on the press release, but not so watered down.
http://www.physorg.com/news158415685.html
The use of the word "magic" in the title of the version you criticize
is indeed unfortunate - particularly when the reader is someone
like you - skeptical of the whole scientific establishment. But to
respond to a few of your complaints:
(1) - What the nickel is thought to have done is not alchemy, but
rather catalysis. It is a component of the enzyme 'carbon monoxide
dehydrogenase' which catalyzes a crucial step in methanogen
metabolism.
(2) - The part of life's history being examined here - from about 3.0
billion years ago to about 2.4 billion years ago - is rather a long time
after the origin-of-life. It is back in the early days, admitedly. But
confusing the methanogen era with abiogenesis is a bit like confusing
a Sopwith Camel with the Kitty Hawk airplane when discussing the
early days of powered flight.
To my mind, the valid criticism of this research - or at least a valid
criticism of the pop-science renditions of it - is that the methanogens
transformed hydrogen and oxidizable biomass to methane. So
without nickel you have less methane released into the atmosphere - ok.
But you have *more* hydrogen and oxidizable organics released.
It seems to me that the implications for atmospheric O2 would be the
about the same either way. Perhaps the published paper deals with
this point, but neither pop-science piece addresses it.
Perplexed in Peoria
Uh, no. You apparently don't grab sticks any better than Nashton.
Origin of life - ~4.2 -3.0 billion years ago.
This article - ~2.7-2.4 billion years ago
First multicellular life - 1.0 - 0.6 billion years ago.
Maybe you should have written 'the event that preceeded the formation
of the first eukaryotes'. That may have been as early as 2.4 billion
years ago - around the time of the first 'oxygen event'. It was the
second 'oxygen event' around 0.6 billion years ago which has been
associated with the Cambrian explosion.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Apr 11, 6:28 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>
> > I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
> > they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
> > This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> > on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
> > environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
> > life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now,
> > there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
> > this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
> > transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
> > membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
>
> > There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> > real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
> > can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
> > ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
> > further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
> > only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
> > on other planets.
>
> (yawn)
>
> No one cares what you think, Nash.
>
"think"?
RF
Sapient Fridge
>
>http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evoluti
>on/1481992/story.html
Interesting article, thanks.
>I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
>they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold,
>perhaps?
No, the only way to transmute elements is by nuclear reactions - and
biological organisms can't do that. The nickel was probably used up by
binding to another element to form an unusable compound, releasing
energy as a result.
Animals do something similar today, we extract oxygen from the
atmosphere and bind it to carbon compounds, producing energy but turning
it into something we can't use (CO2). Fortunately plants use CO2 and
split water to release oxygen, so the reaction is balanced.
If nothing was producing oxygen then eventually it would all be bound up
in CO2 and animals would die out.
The article indicates that once the supply of elemental nickel ran out
the methanogens died out along with it. It sounds like the process
probably wasn't balanced by something turning the nickel compound back
into elemental nickel again.
>This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
>on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
>environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
>life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment.
Nope, I've no idea where you got that idea from.
>Come on now, there must have been some magical "goo" with the right
>proportion of this and that which with the help of an electrical
>discharge, suddenly transformed inorganic matter into an extremely
>complex cell, with membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles,
>to boot.
Since no scientist claims that cells were created fully formed your
statement is a complete strawman. It took hundreds of millions of years
to go from "inorganic matter" to what we would recognise as modern
cells structures.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
raven1
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>(2) - The part of life's history being examined here - from about 3.0
>billion years ago to about 2.4 billion years ago - is rather a long time
>after the origin-of-life. It is back in the early days, admitedly. But
>confusing the methanogen era with abiogenesis is a bit like confusing
>a Sopwith Camel with the Kitty Hawk airplane when discussing the
>early days of powered flight.
The Wright Brothers' first airplane was very tricky to maneuver, but
rapid advances in flight technology made the Sopwith Camel simple
enough for a beagle to fly it.
Dan Luke
"Nashton" wrote:
> the evo-terrorists
Haw!
What a prat you are, Nashie.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Dan Luke
"raven1" wrote:
Nope. The Camel was a beast to fly, a notorious killer of inexperienced
pilots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_camel
Devils Advocaat
wrote:
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:6c165d88-66d6-4be7...@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
From the article:
"The massive influx of oxygen into Earth's atmosphere some 2.4 billion
years ago that set evolution on a path to multicellular life was
unleashed by a cascade of events in which nickel played a starring
role, it argues."
End of extract.
So while it was not the actual event itself, without this first
trigger (as far as I can figure it out) multicellular life would never
have evolved.
But I agree I should have worded my previous post differently.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
raven1
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1ve1u49s9itnhhn68...@4ax.com>):
Snoopy should have been flying a SPAD...
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <5ob1u4djlubco0esq...@4ax.com>):
Errm... The Sopwith _Pup_ was easy to fly, as was the Triplane. The Camel
pulled hard to the right (because of its rotary engine; conversely, it didn't
turn to the left very well, and it was often faster to pull a 270-degree turn
to the right than a 90-degree turn to the left...), was tail-heavy, and (due
to its tendency to pull to the right) easily entered spins which were very
hard to get out of.
That same tendency to turn hard to the right was what made it one of the best
dogfighters ever. Very few other aircraft could outturn a Camel... so long as
the turn was to the right.
It should be noted that relatively few Americans flew Camels, mostly in the
17th and 27th Aero Squadrons (fighters) and the 9th Aero Squadron (recon),
and even in those units the majority of the aircraft in use were French,
SPADs or Nieuports. Snoopy properly should have been flying a SPAD XIII or a
Nieuport 17 or 28.
Sapient Fridge
<use_repl...@spamsights.org> writes
>In message <grprbj$1u6$1...@aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.ca> writes
>>
>>http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evoluti
>>on/1481992/story.html
>
>Interesting article, thanks.
>
>>I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
>>they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold,
>>perhaps?
>
>No, the only way to transmute elements is by nuclear reactions - and
>biological organisms can't do that. The nickel was probably used up by
>binding to another element to form an unusable compound, releasing
>energy as a result.
It looks like the nickel might just have been as a catalyst rather that
as part of the reaction itself.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=211839
The same principle applies though, as the organisms die and sink to the
ocean floor they will remove nickel from the environment. If that
nickel isn't replaced somehow then the organisms will run into problems
eventually.
Dan Luke
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:1ve1u49s9itnhhn68...@4ax.com...
Any pilot who can fly a doghouse like a Camel is no beginner.
Wombat
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:53:17 -0400, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
Wow. The Camel was a killer, with its rotary engine. However, I do
occasionally play my 45rpm vinyl record of Snoopy v The Red Baron.
Wombat
Wombat
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:49:15 -0400, raven1 wrote
As a Yank, he probably would have been.
Wombat
Desertphile
<lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:28 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
> >
> > I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
> > they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
> >
> > This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> > on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
> > environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
> > life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now,
> > there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
> > this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
> > transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
> > membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
> >
> > There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> > real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
> > can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
> > ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
> > further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
> > only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
> > on other planets.
> (yawn)
> No one cares what you think, Nash.
> (shrug)
"Think?" Naff-off and "think" don't go together.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Stuart
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>
> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus.
We don't know that life hasn't appeared on Mars or Venus for that
matter.
However, Venus has a surface temperature of 740C and hardly a speck
of water in its atmosphere. Other than that, life should develop there
no problem.
Life may be quite adaptable, but nobody claims that life can originate
in any envirornment.
You're making stuff up again.
Stuart
STuart
Nashton
> On Apr 11, 6:28 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>>
>> I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
>> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>>
>> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
>> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
>> environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
>> life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now,
>> there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
>> this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
>> transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
>> membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
>>
>> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
>> real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
>> can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
>> ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
>> further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
>> only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
>> on other planets.
>
>
>
>
> (yawn)
>
> No one cares what you think, Nash.
>
> (shrug)
Nice rebuttal.
Translation: "I have nothing to say, but being who I am, I'll just
insult you and pretend that I posted something substantial."
John Smith
If you already knew the crap you posted was useless ...... why'd you post
it?
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>
>http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evolution/1481992/story.html
>
>I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
>they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
>This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
>on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
>environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
>life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now,
>there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
>this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
>transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
>membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
>
>
>There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
>real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
>can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
>ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
>further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
>only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
>on other planets.
Once again NashtOff proves just how scientifically illiterate he is.
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
your misrepresentation of the reports.
You might also like to defend your claim that life can thrive in any
environment - would this be a creationist claim?
--
alias Ernest Major
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <Wz5El.292$WK5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>):
he's a creationist.
Paul Ciszek
In article <KA%Dl.15445$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>,
>Origin of life - ~4.2 -3.0 billion years ago.
>This article - ~2.7-2.4 billion years ago
>First multicellular life - 1.0 - 0.6 billion years ago.
>
>Maybe you should have written 'the event that preceeded the formation
>of the first eukaryotes'. That may have been as early as 2.4 billion
>years ago - around the time of the first 'oxygen event'. It was the
>second 'oxygen event' around 0.6 billion years ago which has been
>associated with the Cambrian explosion.
Could you point me to something on this second "oxygen event"?
I thought there was the initial appearance of small amounts of free
oxygen, then some fraction of a billion years later it reached some
sort of tipping point or critical mass or whatever and you had the
"oxygen catastrophe". Since then, oxygen has waxed and waned with
stuff like snowball earth events cutting off photosynthesis. But
what was the second oxygen event?
As for this nickel thing, are they absolutely sure that oxygen didn't
lead to a drop in nickel concentration rather than the other way around?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <grqec...@news7.newsguy.com>,
J.J. O'Shea <no....@just.go.net> wrote:
>
>Errm... The Sopwith _Pup_ was easy to fly, as was the Triplane. The Camel
>pulled hard to the right (because of its rotary engine; conversely, it didn't
>turn to the left very well, and it was often faster to pull a 270-degree turn
>to the right than a 90-degree turn to the left...), was tail-heavy, and (due
>to its tendency to pull to the right) easily entered spins which were very
>hard to get out of.
Did they all have rotary engines? What other kind of engine was there
until ramjets came along?
Perplexed in Peoria
>
> In article <KA%Dl.15445$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>Uh, no. You apparently don't grab sticks any better than Nashton.
>>Origin of life - ~4.2 -3.0 billion years ago.
>>This article - ~2.7-2.4 billion years ago
>>First multicellular life - 1.0 - 0.6 billion years ago.
>>
>>Maybe you should have written 'the event that preceeded the formation
>>of the first eukaryotes'. That may have been as early as 2.4 billion
>>years ago - around the time of the first 'oxygen event'. It was the
>>second 'oxygen event' around 0.6 billion years ago which has been
>>associated with the Cambrian explosion.
>
> Could you point me to something on this second "oxygen event"?
I googled for it but found less than I would have expected. Here is
one reference:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/09-sealayer.html
Scientists believe oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere rose to today's
levels in two distinct jumps, 2.3 billion years ago and at about 800
million years ago.
IIRC, I got my remembered O2 timeline from Knoll's book
> I thought there was the initial appearance of small amounts of free
> oxygen, then some fraction of a billion years later it reached some
> sort of tipping point or critical mass or whatever and you had the
> "oxygen catastrophe". Since then, oxygen has waxed and waned with
> stuff like snowball earth events cutting off photosynthesis. But
> what was the second oxygen event?
I'm not sure what time frame you had in mind. But there has been
considerable change in O2 and CO2 levels in the past 0.5 billion
years even without snowballs.
> As for this nickel thing, are they absolutely sure that oxygen didn't
> lead to a drop in nickel concentration rather than the other way around?
I haven't read the paper yet. But, based on what little I know of Ni
chemistry, it is not a redox-active element. Pretty much keeps to
a +2 oxidation state. So the oxygen impact would have to be indirect.
One possibility would be to oxidize Ni's favorite ligands like CO.
That would greatly reduce the solubility and hence the availability
to the methanogens.
Ye Old One
His post was more in touch with reality than yours.
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <grqvni$fbt$4...@reader1.panix.com>):
>
> In article <grqec...@news7.newsguy.com>,
> J.J. O'Shea <no....@just.go.net> wrote:
>>
>> Errm... The Sopwith _Pup_ was easy to fly, as was the Triplane. The Camel
>> pulled hard to the right (because of its rotary engine; conversely, it
>> didn't
>> turn to the left very well, and it was often faster to pull a 270-degree
>> turn
>> to the right than a 90-degree turn to the left...), was tail-heavy, and
>> (due
>> to its tendency to pull to the right) easily entered spins which were very
>> hard to get out of.
>
> Did they all have rotary engines? What other kind of engine was there
> until ramjets came along?
>
>
Those kind of rotary engines had the drive shaft fixed to the airframe and
the engine fixed to the airscrew, so that it was really, really, REALLY
air-cooled. And they used castor oil for lubricant, which had, umm,
unfortunate side-effects for the aircrew, the least of which was that their
faces and flight suits and googles became coated with burned castor oil,
which was difficult to remove. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine> A
rotary engine was a very big gyroscope which spewed burned caster oil.
Normal internal combustion engines had the _engine_ fixed to the airframe and
the driveshaft fixed first to the airscrew and later to a gearing system
which drove the airscrew.
The (excellent!) movie _The Blue Max_ features numerous aircraft powered by
rotary engines.
[M]adman
> http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evolution/1481992/story.html
>
> I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold,
> perhaps?
> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
> environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but
> isn't life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on
> now, there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
> this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
> transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
> membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
>
>
> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
> can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
> ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
> further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
> only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also
> present on other planets.
You left out Flonk.
Boikat
> Nashton wrote:
> >http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
He also left out "reality", "Logic" and "knowledge".
Boikat
Wombat
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:48:50 -0400, Paul Ciszek wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <grqeck02...@news7.newsguy.com>,
Does it? Having just skimmed it I have seen many tarted up Tiger
Moths, replica SE5s and other in-line engined planes. The Fokker DR1s
seem to have an exhaust under the engine, unless it is a smoke ejector
for the film. If an exhaust that would suggest the engines are not
rotary, though the short peek I had a my copy this morning showed no
clear view of the front so there may have been at least 3 rotaries in
the film.
Wombat
Nashton
Pigeon-holes are very practical for people who can't think on their feet.
Care to comment on my OP, or is this very simple statement the best you
can do?
>
Ernest Major
>J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:46:14 -0400, John Smith wrote
>> (in article <Wz5El.292$WK5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>):
>>
>>> "Nashton" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:grprbj$1u6$1...@aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>>http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that
>>>>when they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly?
>>>>Gold, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life
>>>>appeared on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted,
>>>>the environmental conditions on those planets are much different,
>>>>but isn't life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment.
>>>>Come on now, there must have been some magical "goo" with the right
>>>>proportion of this and that which with the help of an electrical
>>>>discharge, suddenly transformed inorganic matter into an extremely
>>>>complex cell, with membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely
>>>>*not* real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever
>>>>ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this
>>>>as further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but
>>>>could only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is
>>>>also present on other planets.
>>> If you already knew the crap you posted was useless ...... why'd you
>>>post it?
>> he's a creationist.
>
>Pigeon-holes are very practical for people who can't think on their feet.
>Care to comment on my OP, or is this very simple statement the best you
>can do?
>
post, or at least explain why you so badly misrepresented the reports,
or even defend your claim that life is able to thrive in any environment
(would that be a creationist claim?).
But, I do agree that pigeon-holing you as a creationist is perhaps a
mistake - one imagines that a creationist would be less enthusiastic in
the pursuit of the discrediting of religion.
--
alias Ernest Major
wf3h
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
> > he's a creationist.
>
> Pigeon-holes are very practical for people who can't think on their feet.
says the guy who believes in the pigeonhole of creationism
ah, the irony....
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<56ecf548-42dd-417b...@g17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):
The Tiger Moths are _supposed_ to be aircraft powered by rotaries. Yes, the
DR1s actually have inline engines, instead of the rotaries they're supposed
to have. Makeup had to go to a lot of trouble to dirty up the actors so that
they looked as though they'd been flying aircraft powered by rotaries. The D8
which stared in the final scenes was also supposed to be a rotary. And, no,
it did not have a certain design problem, though many German pilots
distrusted it on sight and thought that it might have that particular
problem, so Sachel's final flight would not have ended that way...
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <grsfrh$hjr$1...@aioe.org>):
Many others have commented. You have failed to reply to them. There appears
to be a reason why.
> or is this very simple statement the best you
> can do?
certainly I can comment further. It's just that you show no evidence of being
able to understand.
But... here goes.
1 your statement 'isn't life supposed to be able to thrive in any
environment' is idiocy. _Different types of life_ can thrive in many
different environments. It is trivial to show that life which thrives on dry
land at an altitude of 5,000 feet, such as mountain goats, many birds, and
assorted types of pine trees, might have a wee problem surviving in the
lagoon inside a coral atoll... though many birds live there, too. Just
different birds. And the life which thrives on the reefs around an atoll
would have a wee problem surviving on the sea floor... despite many of them
being fish, and that fish thrive on the sea floor. Just different fish. It is
also trivial to show that some environments are very difficult ones for any
kind of life. The hard vacuum on the Lunar surface, for one example, is a
place where life is unlikely to thrive. Your first premise is, to put it in
terms that even a creationist cretin can understand, purest bullshit.
2 you specifically mentioned Mars and Venus. They are remarkably different
environments. Scientists are looking for life on Mars, and on one or two of
moons of Jupiter and Saturn, because there is a possibility that life might
actually be there. They are _not_ looking for life on Venus because there is
very, very, VERY little chance that life could exist on Venus... and if it
did, we'd have problems detecting it, as very few of our devices can survive
the extremely harsh conditions (high temperatures, high pressures, acidic
atmosphere, a day longer than the year...) known to be present on Venus.
_Jupiter_ is a better bet for life than Venus. That you group Mars and Venus
together shows that you ain't too bright. But then we already knew this.
3 your statement 'some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot' is classic
creationist cretinoid idiocy. In the first place, the matter in question
would be something built up out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and perhaps
nitrogen molecules, at least for our kind of life. Something that lives on
Jupiter would be different, and something that lives on Venus would be _very_
different. The branch of chemistry which deals with the way items built of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and perhaps nitrogen is called 'organic chemistry'
and the reactions which drive it work whether or not the item in question is
alive. In the second place, no-one except creationist cretins say that cells
formed in one jump. You can keep on hammering away at that straw man all you
like, it will convince no-one of anything other than that you're an idiot...
and we already know this.
I could write more, but I know that this will go right over your head,
because you're a creationist cretin, and stupid even for them.
Be sure to come on back the next time you want me to kick you again.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d4729666-7ce7-4f1b...@v28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
He's an idiot.
TomS
<d4729666-7ce7-4f1b...@v28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
The "pigeonhole principle" is a interesting mathematical method
which is seriously invoked even in advanced mathematics. You can
find a discussion about it in Wikipedia. I find it interesting
as an example of how a tautology - in this case, a truly obvious
statement - can be productive.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Damaeus
Nashton <na...@na.ca> posted:
> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
> can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne
Great. Two of the ones who seem to be magnetized toward my posts. I had
not intended to attract that kind of attention, but I broke the
immortality ice before giving myself a way to wiggle in from underneath
where its more cozy.
Damaeus
Wombat
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:33:37 -0400, Wombat wrote
> (in article
The Germans did use many fighters with in line engines. The Albatros
series , Fokker DVII and Pfaltz spring immediately to mind. After I
posted I did check up on DR1 replicas. They all seem to have radial
engines. In the original book by Jack D. Hunter, Stachel is not
killed flying a D8. Heidelmann is instead killed flying an very
lethal Adler. The very end of the book is where Stachel makes the
acquaintance of Hermann Goering.
Wombat
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> > On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:46:14 -0400, John Smith wrote
>
> >> "Nashton" <n...@na.ca> wrote in messagenews:grprbj$1u6$1...@aioe.org...
> >>>http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
> >>> 481992/story.html
>
> >>> I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when they
> >>> ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
> >>> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared on
> >>> Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the environmental
> >>> conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't life supposed to
> >>> be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now, there must have been
> >>> some magical "goo" with the right proportion of this and that which with
> >>> the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly transformed inorganic matter
> >>> into an extremely complex cell, with membrane, protoplasm and a few
> >>> primitive organelles, to boot.
>
> >>> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> >>> real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that can't
> >>> even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant ignoramuses
> >>> (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as further proof
> >>> that life is an emergent property of matter, but could only appear on
> >>> Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present on other planets.
> >> If you already knew the crap you posted was useless ...... why'd you post
> >> it?
>
> > he's a creationist.
>
> Pigeon-holes are very practical for people who can't think on their feet.
> Care to comment on my OP, or is this very simple statement the best you
> can do?
>
No one cares what you think, Nash. (shrug)
================================================
Paul Ciszek
In article <56ecf548-42dd-417b...@g17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
>Does it? Having just skimmed it I have seen many tarted up Tiger
>Moths, replica SE5s and other in-line engined planes. The Fokker DR1s
>seem to have an exhaust under the engine, unless it is a smoke ejector
"But these fokkers were flying a Messerschmitt!"
heekster
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:23:06 -0400, wf3h wrote
>(in article
><d4729666-7ce7-4f1b...@v28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Apr 12, 6:30 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> he's a creationist.
>>>
>>> Pigeon-holes are very practical for people who can't think on their feet.
>>
>> says the guy who believes in the pigeonhole of creationism
>>
>> ah, the irony....
>>
>
>He's an idiot.
Now you've really pigeonholed him.
He'll probably do everything he can, to re-enforce that impression
now.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<7b9581c5-98d5-4b1c...@l13g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):
I thought that it was supposed to be a D8, in the movie, anyway. And at the
time Fat Hermann wasn't so fat, and was an actual combat commander. 10
victories, IIRC.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <brd4u4l304hbk8vsa...@4ax.com>):
Too late. He's stuck for life.
Ye Old One
Yes, you posted a pile of shite.
> or is this very simple statement the best you
>can do?
>
>
>>
--
Bob.
Wombat
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:52:59 -0400, Wombat wrote
> (in article
> > posted I did check up on DR1 replicas. They all seem to have radial
> > engines. In the original book by Jack D. Hunter, Stachel is not
> > killed flying a D8. Heidelmann is instead killed flying an very
> > lethal Adler. The very end of the book is where Stachel makes the
> > acquaintance of Hermann Goering.
>
> I thought that it was supposed to be a D8, in the movie, anyway. And at the
> time Fat Hermann wasn't so fat, and was an actual combat commander. 10
> victories, IIRC.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Hermann was in fact the commander of Richthofen's Jasta 11 for some
time after the death of von Richthofen.
Wombat
Dan Luke
"J.J. O'Shea" wrote:
>
> He's an idiot.
Quibble: he's a prat.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> In message <grqno2$h...@aioe.org>, Nashton <n...@na.ca> writes
>
> >'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> >> On Apr 11, 6:28 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>>http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evol...
>
> >>> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold, perhaps?
>
> >>> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> >>> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
> >>> environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but isn't
> >>> life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment. Come on now,
> >>> there must have been some magical "goo" with the right proportion of
> >>> this and that which with the help of an electrical discharge, suddenly
> >>> transformed inorganic matter into an extremely complex cell, with
> >>> membrane, protoplasm and a few primitive organelles, to boot.
>
> >>> There is science and there is *real* science. This is definitely *not*
> >>> real science. OTOH, the evo-terrorists, such as whf3..whatever (that
> >>> can't even write), YeOldAndStupidOne and a few other insignificant
> >>> ignoramuses (and I mean this is the nicest way), will jump on this as
> >>> further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, but could
> >>> only appear on Earth, even though matter as we know it, is also present
> >>> on other planets.
> >> No one cares what you think, Nash.
> >> (shrug)
>
>
> >Translation: "I have nothing to say, but being who I am, I'll just
> >insult you and pretend that I posted something substantial."
>
> your misrepresentation of the reports.
>
> You might also like to defend your claim that life can thrive in any
> environment - would this be a creationist claim?
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Well, surely an omnipotent creator could have.
Science certainly has no evidence for that claim. In fact, evidence
against it. The only life we know of exists where there is liquid
water (at least intermittently).
So Venus would be out. Mars, maybe.
Kermit
Rolf
>
http://www.canada.com/technology/Metal+magic+Nickel+kick+started+evolution/1
481992/story.html
>
> I imagine that the methanogens were also alchemists, given that when
> they ingest nickel, they transformed it into what, exactly? Gold,
> perhaps?
>
> This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared
> on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. Granted, the
> environmental conditions on those planets are much different, but
> isn't life supposed to be able to thrive in any environment.
NO.