Posted: Apr 15, 2010 2:54 pm
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"?