trubble76 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:As far i understand experiments which try to recreate Early-Earth conditions to examine abiogenisis-related hypotheses such as we have here, the biggest stumbling block is the fact that in the real conditions, these reactions may have taken hundreds of thousands of years to get started, clearly we do not have that amount of time with which to duplicate the process. Therefore working with pure versions of ingredients that probably weren't as pure in real life is a method used to cut experiment time down from 100,000 years to something a little more managable.

I was offering my understanding on the general problems of abiogenisis research, none of what i wrote replies to Newmark for you.

Not for me, trubble.
Answer for yourself.
Listen, if you say it's justified to up the concs to save time, I'm not arguing with you.
Have it out with NewM.

general-debunking/abiogenesis-t844-660.html#p132945

Everything that Durro expressly warned you about Rainbow, you are repeating here.

If you do not want to achieve death-by-mod, stop playing ridiculous games misrepresenting people's words, pretending you didn't write something when it is even written in the quote you replied to, and start engaging in some valid discussion.

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:Fair point!
Please define 'sufficiently prebiotically plausible'.

Please read:

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
Matthew W. Powner1, Béatrice Gerland1 & John D. Sutherland1
Nature 24 March 2009

Does it define 'sufficiently prebiotically plausible' in that paper?

'Sufficiently prebiotically plausible' means that you can use these conditions when you are testing what reactions that might happened on prebiotic earth, and it will be considered a good enough approximation to pass peer review. This means that they can simple be called "prebiotically plausible conditions", and that it should be a good enough approximation for any discussion conducted here. The very existence of this paper in a peer reviewed setting should be enough to make this point abundantly clear.

Appeal to Authority again

Oh, jeez, what do I find most convincing? The contents of a widely cited peer reviewed paper, or the ramblings of a random guy on the Internet that apparently thinks that vacuum pumps on prebiotic earth is something that a scientist would postulate? Though choice, that one.

Oh, if you've got anything against using peer reviewed papers as an authority, please start a new thread for that one.

You didn't answer the question: "Does it define 'sufficiently prebiotically plausible' in that paper?"
Yes/No?

No.

"Sufficiently prebiotically plausible" can be derived from the paper to by included in the "prebiotically plausible conditions" specified in the title (and, presumable, also later in the article). This is apparent to anyone willing to participate in an honest discussion, but you rather seem to fall back on semantics when you have got nothing else to offer.

This is easily demonstrated as you choose to quote only the part of my post where you might score a cheap rhetoric point, and completely ignore the question of substance I asked later. I join Spearthrower in asking you this again:

Do you have any peer reviewed support to the idea that the conditions used in the Sutherland paper was not prebiotically plausible? Does this peer reviewed support mention that Sutherland should have excluded vacuum pumps from their prebiotic setting, or is that just another one of your "opinions"?

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:As far i understand experiments which try to recreate Early-Earth conditions to examine abiogenisis-related hypotheses such as we have here, the biggest stumbling block is the fact that in the real conditions, these reactions may have taken hundreds of thousands of years to get started, clearly we do not have that amount of time with which to duplicate the process. Therefore working with pure versions of ingredients that probably weren't as pure in real life is a method used to cut experiment time down from 100,000 years to something a little more managable.

I was offering my understanding on the general problems of abiogenisis research, none of what i wrote replies to Newmark for you.

Not for me, trubble.
Answer for yourself.
Listen, if you say it's justified to up the concs to save time, I'm not arguing with you.
Have it out with NewM.

omg, it burns!
I do answer for myself, you were the one trying to make me answer Newmark.
Good grief, do you not bother reading anything at all?
Your arguments and evasions are pathetic, and increasingly tiresome.

It comes down to this. Either you can falsify the hypothesis and show the man's work to be false (which would be a great piece of science that would be interesting to many scientists, work worthy of praise), or you cannot and you're just trolling because you believe science is the enemy of your god.

Your duplicitous tactics are (not?) very christian.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place.

Do you have a citation to back up this claim? Has the author specified this reasoning somewhere?

Oh it wasn't my claim. It was in reply to what trubble said. If you disagree with trubble, you take it up with trubble.
OK?

This is just intentionally deceptive.

Reported.

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:As far i understand experiments which try to recreate Early-Earth conditions to examine abiogenisis-related hypotheses such as we have here, the biggest stumbling block is the fact that in the real conditions, these reactions may have taken hundreds of thousands of years to get started, clearly we do not have that amount of time with which to duplicate the process. Therefore working with pure versions of ingredients that probably weren't as pure in real life is a method used to cut experiment time down from 100,000 years to something a little more managable.

I was offering my understanding on the general problems of abiogenisis research, none of what i wrote replies to Newmark for you.

Not for me, trubble.
Answer for yourself.
Listen, if you say it's justified to up the concs to save time, I'm not arguing with you.
Have it out with NewM.

You really should stop ignoring posts directed at you. Not only have you not understood what tubble76 meant, you also ignored this post where I specified that I have no issue with trubble76, the questions were intended for you. Are tweaking of concentrations and purities in any way relevant to the article according to you rainbow? If so, why and how? If not, just say that it isn't.

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place.

Do you have a citation to back up this claim? Has the author specified this reasoning somewhere?

Oh it wasn't my claim. It was in reply to what trubble said. If you disagree with trubble, you take it up with trubble.
OK?

This is just intentionally deceptive.

Reported.

It is not deceptive. It's a paraphrase of what trubble said.

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place.

Do you have a citation to back up this claim? Has the author specified this reasoning somewhere?

Oh it wasn't my claim. It was in reply to what trubble said. If you disagree with trubble, you take it up with trubble.
OK?

This is just intentionally deceptive.

Reported.

It is not deceptive. It's a paraphrase of what trubble said.

No, it's presenting my opinion of general methods of experimentation and deceptively twisting it to represent a specific claim relating to this particular case. I have already told you all of this, therefore you are being willfully ignorant and deceptive.
Jesus might forgive you, not so sure i will.

It seems quite obvious now that rainbow actually has nothing of substance with which to critique the paper.
He asks a series of open questions as if they should somehow lead us to something. But all we have are his questions... nothing else.
So in the care I see before me :
Random internet guy asking open questions in the absense of experimental support, contrasted with the consensus of the scientists that performed the experiment and the peer reviewers of the paper(what can on a fundamental level be described as an appeal to comparative authority), it would seem that in answer to the question posed in the title of the thread: "The sutherland synthesis - Plausible?" the preliminary answer must be "yes".