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?

No no, the sentence is yours. You commented on what trubble said. Is it your opinion that the authors are "tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place" ?
It's what you wrote, so I'm a little confused now that you say it's not what you meant.

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:The question is, are the conditions still sufficiently prebiotically plausible?

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?

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?

Oh i think you should read my post again, i said nothing of the sort. My initial post was a general overview of why some experiments cannot exactly mirror real life, how this is addressed, and why it's not a deal-breaker. I made no reference to this particular experiment as i do not have enough information upon which to make such a claim. Given that scientists with a more relevent specialisation than i have already reviewed and accepted the research i find it highly likely to be reliable, and as such was offering you my opinion on why your objections were poor ones.

Rumraket 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?

No no, the sentence is yours. You commented on what trubble said.

...so I was taking trubble's statement at face-value.
If YOU disagree with it, YOU take it up with trubble.
OK?

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket 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?

No no, the sentence is yours. You commented on what trubble said.

...so I was taking trubble's statement at face-value.
If YOU disagree with it, YOU take it up with trubble.
OK?

Lying for Jesus is still lying.
OK?

trubble76 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?

Oh i think you should read my post again, i said nothing of the sort. My initial post was a general overview of why some experiments cannot exactly mirror real life, how this is addressed, and why it's not a deal-breaker. I made no reference to this particular experiment as i do not have enough information upon which to make such a claim. Given that scientists with a more relevent specialisation than i have already reviewed and accepted the research i find it highly likely to be reliable, and as such was offering you my opinion on why your objections were poor ones.

OK, so you didn't say:

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.

My mistake.

And here's what i said to clarify, guess you missed it.
I made NO comments about the particulars of the research in question, the initial post was clearly a general point.

trubble76 wrote:

Oh i think you should read my post again, i said nothing of the sort. My initial post was a general overview of why some experiments cannot exactly mirror real life, how this is addressed, and why it's not a deal-breaker. I made no reference to this particular experiment as i do not have enough information upon which to make such a claim. Given that scientists with a more relevent specialisation than i have already reviewed and accepted the research i find it highly likely to be reliable, and as such was offering you my opinion on why your objections were poor ones.

trubble76 wrote:And here's what i said to clarify, guess you missed it.
I made NO comments about the particulars of the research in question, the initial post was clearly a general point.

trubble76 wrote:

Oh i think you should read my post again, i said nothing of the sort. My initial post was a general overview of why some experiments cannot exactly mirror real life, how this is addressed, and why it's not a deal-breaker. I made no reference to this particular experiment as i do not have enough information upon which to make such a claim. Given that scientists with a more relevent specialisation than i have already reviewed and accepted the research i find it highly likely to be reliable, and as such was offering you my opinion on why your objections were poor ones.

Terribly sorry. When you said:

hypotheses such as we have here

- I should have realised that you weren't talking about this here paper, but research in general.

Alright, so now that this has been clarified we can scrap the notion that the authors are "tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place" and move on.

So given that rainbow is the one asking open questions about the prebiotic plausibility of the rections, and the fact that we don't have access to laboratories so we can answer his questions, the only logical next step is for rainbow to write the author and direct his questions at him.

Yes, "such as" implies generality. It means "like" or "similar to". I refrained from talking specifically about this particular research because, as i already mentioned, i don't have enough information. Hence my use of phrases such as "as far as i understand experiments"

Rumraket wrote:Alright, so now that this has been clarified we can scrap the notion that the authors are "tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place" and move on.

Well it seems that in research generally they do this, but in this particular case - we can't be sure.

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:The question is, are the conditions still sufficiently prebiotically plausible?

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.

Now, 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:

Rumraket wrote:Alright, so now that this has been clarified we can scrap the notion that the authors are "tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place" and move on.

Well it seems that in research generally they do this, but in this particular case - we can't be sure.

This is generally done in research, I guess you have that on good grounds... Tell me:

If any researcher would tweak concentration and purities to achieve the environment required for the hypothesis, what impact would this have on the hypothesis?

Conversely, what do you think would happened if a researcher would tweak concentration and purities in such a way that the environment of the experiment deviated from the environment specified in the hypothesis?

Newmark wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:The question is, are the conditions still sufficiently prebiotically plausible?

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

Newmark wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Alright, so now that this has been clarified we can scrap the notion that the authors are "tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place" and move on.

Well it seems that in research generally they do this, but in this particular case - we can't be sure.

This is generally done in research, I guess you have that on good grounds... Tell me:

If any researcher would tweak concentration and purities to achieve the environment required for the hypothesis, what impact would this have on the hypothesis?

Conversely, what do you think would happened if a researcher would tweak concentration and purities in such a way that the environment of the experiment deviated from the environment specified in the hypothesis?

Ask trubble, you know the one that said:

My initial post was a general overview of why some experiments cannot exactly mirror real life, how this is addressed, and why it's not a deal-breaker.

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.

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Alright, so now that this has been clarified we can scrap the notion that the authors are "tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place" and move on.

Well it seems that in research generally they do this, but in this particular case - we can't be sure.

This is generally done in research, I guess you have that on good grounds... Tell me:

If any researcher would tweak concentration and purities to achieve the environment required for the hypothesis, what impact would this have on the hypothesis?

Conversely, what do you think would happened if a researcher would tweak concentration and purities in such a way that the environment of the experiment deviated from the environment specified in the hypothesis?

Ask trubble, you know the one that said:

My initial post was a general overview of why some experiments cannot exactly mirror real life, how this is addressed, and why it's not a deal-breaker.

Trubble76 has gotten this exactly right. He doesn't confuse hypothesis with experiments. You are the one to drag up tweaking of concentrations and purities as if it had any impact to the article in question. Support why it should, or admit that it is irrelevant.

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:The question is, are the conditions still sufficiently prebiotically plausible?

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?

I don't know - why don't you try reading it before making a thread attempting to undermine it?

Furthermore, this thread makes a mockery of your comment on the other:

Rainbow wrote:The discussion is OVER, Durro.
...at least as far as I'm concerned, you can shut it down, or continue without me.
I don't give a tss.
Clear?

Of course you don't give a toss about that thread - you've got this one to play these fucking inane games with instead.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Alright, so now that this has been clarified we can scrap the notion that the authors are "tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place" and move on.

Well it seems that in research generally they do this, but in this particular case - we can't be sure.

And if we can't be sure.... then why did you expressly state that they were?

Newmark wrote:

'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.

Now, 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"?

Yes please - answer the question Rainbow - do you, or do you not, have a single shred of evidence to support any of your claims in this thread?