Well Grumpy here is one more fact for your file. Science doesn't move forward until the old timers move on. Sorry but its true. Maybe you think you are holding down the fort but in fact you're just trying to stifle change.

Hello no1nose, Seeker.

TO SEEKER:...If you have access to any inorganic/organic chemistry processes/production facility, then you may see for youself that in any bulk reaction (whether natural/man-arranged) there is a 'spread' of by-products and a 'spread' of by-product equilibria/balance (depending on pressures/temperatures during the reaction, from initiation to completion (man-arranged processes usually being of extremely short duration compared to natural ones). So ALL PRECURSOR AND POSTCURSOR MOLECULES ARE PROBABLE BY PRODUCTS AT ONE OR OTHER STAGE OF SUCH BULK REACTIONS. The question as to whether one or another by-product SURVIVES without further re-combinations into more stable 'folded' configurations also depends on whether the 'external environmental conditions will allow it or not (i.e., whether the atmosphere/environment is 'reducing' or 'oxidising' or 'neutral' etc.). So I wouldn't be too sure about what is required before what, as they were ALL present together for long periods of time/interactions. So give Grumpy a break, will you? He doesn't have to reacreate ALL OF CHEMICAL HISTORY OF LIFE ON EARTH IN ORDER TO MAKE SENSE OF THE MOST RECENTLY ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE IN THIS AREA.


TO NO1NOSE:...The same thing you say about scientific orthodoxy applies EVEN MORE SO AND IN SPADES to 'OLD PRIESTS'. So, again, give him a break and concentrate on the relevant arguments...play the ball, not the man.


Impartial regards from: RealityCheck.
.

Dear RealityCheck,

I agree that in any of the said "bulk reactions" that there are many many leftovers. This creates a type of biological sludge. This biological sludge should be left in AT LEAST small amounts inbetween prebiotic(before life) sediment layers. Not only is this NOT found, but in these same sediment layers there are signs of OXIDATION. Oxygen was around, at the very least, simultaneous with life, if not before it. Especially if we are going with the established scientific timeline. Therefore, thus, etc....the first life had to use oxygen to sustain it, and amino acids could not develope into non-oxygen fueled life forms. The idea that life was here before oxygen is not at all warranted in the geological map of history at our disposal.

Oh, and also you said that each of the precursor/postcursor molecules are probable at some point in the cycle. First of all, as established previously, oxygen was present before all this, so it's unlikely that they would be present for more than a few seconds. Also, each of the molecules must be present at the same time, not at "some point" in the cycle, in order for the process to come along.

Anyhow, thankyou for bringing up the "extras" in bulk reactions. It was something that should be brought up in these types of conversations.

Peace guys,

Seeker

To Seeker and No1Nose

Ah yes, a jungle to which i can apply my machetti!!

First seeker, alas I have been put out to pasture after 30+ years teaching in several HS systems as a science/physics/chemistry teacher.

To No1Nose, The only change I will resist is a change away from a strict adherance to the scientific method. Change and new information are always attributes of science and new findings are what gets me out of bed every day, especially in ASTROPHYSICS where new exotic 'creatures" are found daily.

Seeker, you have a basic misunderstanding about oxygen. In non-biotic systems you wull rarely encounter a free oxygen molecule. Were it not for the plankton and other greenery around the world there would be none, yes none, in the atmosphere or the oceans. O reacts with almost everything and must be constantly replaced in the atmosphere. Astronomers currently looking for planets hope to get spectra indicating O because that will indicate the almost certainty of the existance of life on that planet. 3.5 billion years ago Earth had no free oxygen in the atmosphere,those indications of oxydation in the strata are where the oxygen went. The huge iron ore deposits around the world are the indirect work of the first photosynthetic algaes. Until almost all of the iron was removed from the biosphere free O could not exist, it took millions of years before living plant life were able to outproduce O's tendancy to combine with almost anything and free O became available for animals to develop. That struggle is ongoing today and if we succeed in killing our oceans we will follow soon thereafter. (I know it's O 2 but my keyboard doesn't have that, stupid keyboard)


I can try to calculate the probability of a future event, but after the event has occured the probability of that event becomes 1 to 1, unity, certainty, it happened. It becomes futile to try to calculate probabilities that it could have happened the way it did because it did happen the way it did. So when someone tries to use specious mathmatical calculations to "prove" that evolution could not have occured when I know, from the stupendous quantities of supporting evidence, that it has then my wicked side emerges and says something sarcastic(yes I'm resonsible for the C thing, not proud, but responsible).

As to your point about RNA or DNA being necessary for primative life to exist you could not be more wrong. What, according to nature , is the meanig of life, it's purpose? Live long enough to reproduce, hopefully more than once. That's it, all else is gravy. A simple protein that can attract , through chemical bonds, the neccessary pieces of peptides or even amino acids to assemble a copy or reverse copy or a corelated protein(each protein creats it's opposite, wow, sexual reproduction right from the start) qualifies as life. It could take a hundred years for each protein to complete the process but then there are two, then four,eight,sixteen,etc. And, after all, they had 2.25 billion years of further evolution before they had to worry about more than one cell. Yes, it's only one step above crystalization but it is life. It's "genetic" information is inherent in it's chemical makeup and the spacial orientation of it's molecules. It "feeds" by chance encounters with the correct molecules and may fail a thousand times for every successful reproduction. Some of those "failures" may be molecules which are actually more successful than the original(bigger, with additional posibilities) Evolution has begun.

As to the age of the Earth. You obviously are better at math than I, so you should have no troubke calculating half lives of the various long lived isotopes, comparing these calculations to the isotope/decay remnant ratio and coming up with the amount of time needed to acheive that ratio. The various isotopes give slightly different answers but about 4.5 billion years falls well within the probability of error of them all. I see no evidence that would cause me to doubt those results.

I submit that evolution( which means change) is easily seen in the fossil record. It may be as simple as the moth in England which, prior to the 19th century was an offwhite color (there are preserved specimins in the British Museum) and changed color to a dingy brown by the middle 1800's. This is a FACT, CHANGE occured. If change occured in a species then EVOLUTION of that species has occured. Thus evolution is observed to be a FACT. I then HYPOTHESIZE that the burning of coal darkened the surface of the tree the moth liked to perch upon causing lighter colored moths to be more likely to be eaten than those that were darker. I am able to predict that if less coal is burned or cleaner methods of burning it are found the color will likely lighten. I work hard enough that my H evolves into a THEORY. In the twentieth century less coal is burned and cleaner burning becomes the norm. The moths colors change to a lighter shade. Thus I have made a prediction based on my theory and repeated the experiment.( the first experiment was observed in nature, I have proposed a cause and predicted the outcome of the second experiment, thus evolution can be EXPERIMENTALLY TESTED.) I have not misused the word FACT, in the example above that the moth changed(EVOLVED) is easily seen by simple observation.. So the FACT that EVOLUTION(changes in species) has occured throughout the history of life on Earth is amply supported by the fossil record.

Again a misuse of math to "prove" that the fossil record would be miles deep and who have you been listening to who told you the fossil record is all jumbled up? Sure, tectonic forces can sometimes fold strata or tilt them on edge but this is very rare. There is no confusion about the origin or sequence of the different strata, someone is feeding you bad information and if you would do your own research you would soon find that out.

The relationship between Velocirapters and birds is written in the remarkable simularity of the bone structures and, the clincher, feathers.

The evolution of man is well enough established that it stands on it's own. If you choose to ignore or distort the extensive fossil record that's your problem. If A's earhole was more apelike it supports my contention that man descended from the apes. And do you suppose that the upright stance evolved overnight? As for"missing links" there are many transitional forms, do we yet have examples of all such creatures? No, but we have more than enough so that the words "missing links" is archaic and has fallen out of use except for the CS BS crowd. there aren't that many transitional types left to find. And recent DNA findings are even worse news for that crowd.

I hope I have been able to help correct the misconceptions of what the fossil records show was the story of life on Earth. The only stupid questions are those unasked (and those asked over and over,"are we there yet")

Hello Seeker, Grumpy.

Further to both your comments...

It should be understood that:

- there are 'several'HIGHER/LOWER' OXIDATION?REDUCTION STATES (and even PARTIAL/TEMPORARY/TRANSITIONAL STATES) for many of the elements/molecules mentioned in the discussion so far;

- there are life forms in the deep oceans (next to 'volcanic vent' Fumeroles) that DO NOT depend on 'free' Oxygen for 'oxidising' the DISSOLVED SULPHIDES in order to extract the processing energy they require. They use the vent/environmental heat energy and the sulphides/water compounds' reducing/oxidation potenrials to drive the necessary reactions for life. So the oxygen ALREADY bound to hydrogen (water) reacts with the 'free' (reduced) sulphur element to produce sulphur-oxide and free-hydrogen ions etc....at no time involving 'free' oxygen.

- as to the presence absence of 'sludge' between rock strata: the sludge would have been 'long ago' digested by interstitial bacteria etc.; or oxidised/pyrolised (high-temperature destruction) due to techtonic friction-heat and/or volcanic/radio-active heat/radiation etc.


So what Grumpy holds is 'in fact' (don't hit me!) quite straightforward and readily ascertainable if one is prepared to 'really reasearch' ALL ASPECTS of this discussion topic as a whole body of study (rather than selected areas of it).


Regenerative regards from: RealityCheck.

Dear Grumpy,

Excellent!! A challenge. I hope that your machete is sharper than that. Most of your last entry is awesomely out of date. For some of this rebutle I have had to do some personal research, as you so aptly suggested. Thankyou. I am always up to learning something new. You're living up to your title of teacher. If you encouraged your students to look things up for themselves half as much as you've done for me, I'm sure that their opinions are probably really well developed.

On WITH IT!!



Let me first disembowel the examples of evolution in our midst that you gave so readily.
Recent hoaxes.

First let's tackle the MIGHTY RAPTOR!!

1. Do you think these hoaxes and frauds are a thing of the past? Oh, No!

2. A report from the Los Angeles Times recently had the byline, "Once Hailed as a Missing Link, Forgery is Found to be Mosaic of Fossils from Micro raptor and a Bird" (Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2002). Here are the highlights of that news report:

a. NEW YORK - When the smuggled stone slab first surfaced at a Tucson mineral show, it seemed the likely key to a mystery of evolution.

1) To the collector who paid $80,000 for it, the Chinese fossil had every appearance of a feathered dinosaur that flew like a modern bird.

2) The purported missing link made headlines when National Geographic trumpeted the find in 1999,

3) Then caused red faces when it was revealed as a forgery a year later.

b. Researchers in China and at the American Museum of Natural History in New York now have completely deciphered the deception.

1) The find wrongly hailed as a crucial link between the dinosaurs and the birds actually does contain fossils of a dinosaur and a bird.

2) But the only connection between them is glue.

c. Suspicions about these bones were first confirmed when X-ray analysis revealed that the fossil was a mosaic made from 88 fragments of rock and fossil leaved together in three layers and glued to a single supporting slab of shale. Grout had been used to fill any gaps…. a hoax to deliberately mislead scientists, as was the case with the infamous Piltdown Man.

d. In that 1912 incident, a researcher deliberately altered a set of human and orangutan bones to make them seem to be remains from the same creature, then buried them in an English quarry. When they were dug up, they were hailed as a missing link between ape and modern mankind. The hoax distorted scientific ideas on the descent of man for almost 40 years.


And NOW the incredible PEPPERED MOTH!!


1. Most high school biology textbooks today cite this creature as a proof of evolution…

a. According to the evolutionary scenario, the peppered moth rests on tree trunks during the day.

b. Industrial pollution blackened the tree trunks, making the dark moths invisible to preying birds, which caused them to become the dominant variety.

c. Later, pollution controls caused the light variety to resurge.

2. Biologist Jonathan Wells, who holds PhDs from Yale and Berkeley, exposes the myth of the peppered moth in his book Icons of Evolution.

a. As it turns out, peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day.

b. In some studies, this was faked by gluing and pinning dead moths to trees and photographing them.

3. Young students attending colleges across this country are studying about these moths.

a. The books say that it proves evolution.

b. No one tells the students that it is a hoax, that Dead moths were glued to the trees and photographed to try and find some proof for evolution - somewhere!

However, it is true that some change can occur within species. If some variation permits a few birds(say Darwin's famous finches for example) allows them to survive better than their peers, then it is only logical to think that over time more birds will look like them. The slight gene difference in those birds will allow them to survive, mate and produce more like them, because that slight difference is a dominant gene in that group and for the most part will remain so. This is called "MicroEvolution", as I'm sure you're quite aware. However, this type of change can NEVER EVER EVER facilitate a change in kind of creature. There are very specific limits to how much flexibility there is to change. Asking someone to believe in "MacroEvolution", (such as the change from dinosaur to bird) based on "MicroEvolution" is just ridiculous.



Ok, on to the DNA/RNA question.

Most of the information you have quoted comes originally, I believe, from D.H. Kenyon's book "Biochemical Predestination" in which he attempted in 1969 to explain chemical evoluiton. A great attempt, though completely discreditted since. He claimed in his tome that the amino acids necessary for life-giving proteins could synthesize into said proteins merely by a chemical predisposition to do so. This has been since proven false. DNA is required to form and replicate proteins. D.H. Kenyon has even admitted this himself. He completely denounces his earlier work. Pretty humble to be able to do that, in my opinion. I deeply respect that. Sometimes I don't admit defeat so admirably.

Ok, I'm giving some more math out now, so no one jump down my throat please. lol. By the way, I do understand what you're saying about the 1 to 1 ratio of something that has already happened. The only thing I said against your statement is that we don't know how something happened just because it did. We only know that it DID happen. We can speculate as to how...that's it. That's where math comes into play. We calculate the probability that it happened a certain way, and if it comes out to a ridiculous/impossible number, we can pretty safely discard that way of attempting to explain things.

Anyhow, more math.


Can DNA Come into Being by Chance?

All information about living beings is stored in the DNA molecule. This incredibly efficient information storage method alone is a clear evidence that life did not come into being by chance, but has been purposefully designed, or, better to say, marvellously created.


At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000 genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the right sequence, by chance. The evolutionist biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNAgene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNAchain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.124

The number 41000 is the equivalent of 10600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one - which is possible- and the combination of these with in very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.125

For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by coincidence, as the result of an evolutionary process:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.126

The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue:

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.127

A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realised by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has to be "created" before the other. The American microbiologist Homer Jacobson comments:


Prof. Francis Crick: "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle."

Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.128

The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developments in science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. Two German scientists Junker and Scherer explained that the synthesis of each of the molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates distinct conditions, and that the probability of the compounding of these materials having theoretically very different acquirement methods is zero:

Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis.129


Watson and Crick with a stick model of the DNA molecule.

In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level. Rather than providing answers to such questions, the progress of science renders them even more complex and inextricable.

Interestingly enough, most evolutionists believe in this and similar totally unscientific fairy tales as if they were true, because accepting intelligent design means accepting creation-and they have conditioned themselves not to accept this truth. One famous biologist from Australia, Michael Denton, discusses the subject in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt-the paradigm takes precedence!130



121 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Origin of Life, California: 1979, p. 25.
122 Ibid.
123 S. W. Fox, K. Harada, G. Kramptiz, G. Mueller, "Chemical Origin of Cells", Chemical Engineering News, June 22, 1970, p. 80.
124 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.
125 Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.
126 Francis Crick, Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88.
127 Ali Demirsoy, Kalýtým ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 39.
128 Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life", American Scientist, January 1955, p.121.
129 Reinhard Junker & Siegfried Scherer, "Entstehung Gesiche Der Lebewesen", Weyel, 1986, p. 89.
130 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.



WHEW!! That was "exhaustive", as it were.
I've included all the reference you'll need to look this up for yourself. I don't like to make you all work too hard. Though I do thank you again, Grumpy, for getting me to explore more for myself. I found many interesting things. This is fun and exciting.


Ok, what else?

AH, the all important subject of the evolution of man. You claim that we have found enough "missing links" to well establish a history of man's evolution. Well, you've only offered one thus far, which, as I have pointed out, was debugged quite thoroughly. I'm familiar with at least most of the other supposed links, and I'd be happy to discuss more of them in detail if you care to bring any specific ones up.

Alright, we get back to oxygen. Alas, it appears, respectfully, that you have the misunderstanding, sir. You're correct, as far as I can tell, that non-biotic systems rarely have free oxygen in large amounts. However, life is NEVER found apart from oxygen. Also, how can you just automatically assume that the oxygen is only free because of photosynthesis. That is how MORE is released into the atmosphere, but without animals/many other seperate chemical reactions taking it out and producing CO2, the photosynthetic life would be unable to function. It's a carefully balanced system, with all parts needing to be in place AT ONCE. As for the rest of the paragraph on oxygen, it's pure conjecture. Just ideas that only partially, at best, explain anything.

Ok, let's see what other "whet stones" I can throw over to you, so you can sharpen your machete.

On to the age of the earth. The halflife method is only able to work because of a major basic assumption about the amounts of isotopes in the system, based on how quickly they are being eliminated. We do not know that the current models of isotopic degradation represent the levels at which the degenerated previously. In fact, searching the globe, the evidence seems to point that they did deteriorate at a much faster pace than is now observed. We only see how fast the isotopes are deteriorating now. A good example is this: Imagine you come into a room and you see a candle burning. From the time you enter the room, you can measure how fast the candle burns. What you can never know is how fast, long, or even when the candle started burning in your absence. Not without outside evidence.

OK, back to the fossil record. The fossil record is indeed jumbled in many areas. Also, many fossils are found where they should not possibly be. Shellfish found on top of mountains is one example. However, you're correct in saying that, in general, much of the record is in a specific order. There is a much fdifferent explaination than the one you prescribe too though. I don't want to sound like an ultraconservative "Biblethumper", so this next suggestion is quite a risk for me to take. There is much evidence that a world wide flood was involved in creating the sediment layers and therefore fossil layers that we observe in the world today. I say this based on geological evidence, as well as the anthropological evidence of over 1000 flood legends handed down through the generations in almost every culture. A flood on this scale helps to explain the general distrubution of the fossils in the sediment layers(not unlike putting sediments of various densities into a jar with water and shaking it up. each of the sediments will settle to the appropriate level for its respective density). Now, while the order of the fossil record(roughly first invertebrates, then simple vertebrates, then jawed fishes, then amphibians, then reptiles, and finally birds and mammals), can be misconstrued to appear as a natural progression through evolution towards "modern" animals/plants, this is not the only possibly conclusion, nor the most simple/likely. The most favorable idea, besides the typical darwinistic conclusion, is that the fossils were placed in the order in which the live animals would have appeared in actual everyday life. Invertebrates and simple vertebrates mostly live on the ocean floor, and therefore the majority of them would be in the bottom part of the sediments. Jawed fishes swim about in the various depths of water, and would end up higher(for the most part) than the invertebrate/simple vertebrates. Next would come the amphibians who, naturally, spend some time on land and in very shallow water. Followed by reptiles, who despite having a slow metabolism and not being able to flee to higher ground effectively, are nevertheless primarily land dwellers and therefore above the amphibians and such. After this, of course, are the mammals and birds, the latter of which could fly, if need be, over the rising waters for some time.

Once again, is wasn't my intention to sound like an ULTRACONSERVATIVE "Biblethumper", so this is a considerable risk to mention this. But, as only part of the evidence, being anthropological, is from the Bible, I thnk that I should be ok amongst open minded people such as yourselves.

Alrighty guys, I'll check back later to see the replies.

Have a good one all,

Seeker

To Seeker

Quote any CS BS you want, noone can prove a negative. All your math is wasted in the attempt. The assumtions you(or anyone else) makes and the odds you calculate are meaningless. The FACT that simple life developed on Earth is a done deal, it happened. And every author who says that DNA,RNA and mitochondria are necessary before life can begin dont know what they are speaking about. The Quartz molecule qualifies as an extremely simple form of life because it can assemble others of it's kind into crystals. This happens because of chemical bonds between the molecules, requiring no DNA. In the same fashion simple polypeptides could attract simular molecules to assemble copies of itself. That is all life is required to do. Yes, mid size proteins do require help in assembly but midsize means some 300 peptide pairs. Simple proteins can be as small as two. And peptides have been shown,in the lab, to result from physical shock(comet impact) of amino acids (present in the comet and in molecular clouds throughout the galaxy). So all we need is ONE chance assembly of peptides that is able to replicate. Another intriging thought is the possibility of a pair of self replicating proteins, one assembles the other, sort of like a short segment of a ladder or double helix.(hmmm... I've heard of that somewhere before) I do not and may never know the precise sequence of events that started the evolution of life on Earth, but the probability that it occurred is 100%. It's simple(ok, maybe not so simple) biochemistry, and if we find life elsewhere in the universe I will not be in the least supprised and I would be willing to bet it's chemistry( but not outward appearance) will be virtually identical to the life we already know. The natural laws of the universe seem to favor the formation of life wherever it is in the least possible.

By the way, the velociraptor was about 6 feet tall, had a sickle shapped big toe claw(the better to disembowel you,my dear), ran in packs, had a relatively large brain and yes, he had feathers. Many partial and several full fossils are available for study with not a misplaced chicken bone among them(I dont think chickens grow to six feet, do they). Whoever told you that Velociraptor was a hoax doesn't know of which he speaks. The Chinese fossils(yes, there are quite a few) of the winged reptile/bird(it starts with an A....help out my failing memory folks) are also not hoaxes. Whoever told you that is just a liar twisting truth to support his own position.

You know, a single trip to The Museum of Natural History in DC would put this evolution stuff into proper perspective for you or anyone else that doubts what science is telling us. A conspiracy to decieve the public about our natural history that is that large and complicated would fall apart of it's own stupendous weight.
I went to the museum here in Raliegh and met Lucy, the T Rex. It was a spiritual moment, I dont worship her, but I do respect her existance and so should we all.

Dear Grumpy,

Wow. I really don't think that I'm the one in denial here sir. It's a shame, that even with documentation from proevolutionist sources, i.e. National Geographic, and The Los Angeles Times, that you cannot admit the hoaxes. I'm not quoting some CS BS (Creation Science Bullshit, I think?). And, do I sense some resentment? I'm only providing the latest findings.

As for the Velociraptor; I did do some additional research into that particular subspecies of raptor. Thankyou again. Once again NOT I repeat NOT from a "CS BS"(Please let me know if my guess at the acronym here is correct. Brilliant! Another one of yours, I presume?) source. From another proevolutionist source, here is the LATEST info on the Velociraptor.



-Wikipedia, last modified 6 Sept, 2005

Also, I believe you're mistaken as to the dimensions of the beast. With a hip height of only 1 ft 8 in, it would not have stood more than about 3 ft tall(confirmed on another site that I can quote if you care to know where). The measurements you are quoting are much more akin to it's larger "cousin" the Deinonychus, with was regrettably used as the model for the Velociraptor in the movie series Jurassic Park. Therefore I understand the common misconception that the creature was about 6 ft tall. People fall victim to pop culture EVERY day.
That said, you can take up the Hoax of the Reptile Bird with National Geographic. I don't think that they would recant an error in judgement unless they were absolutely sure that they were wrong. The raptor/bird hoax was not unlike the recent hoax in the religious world, where a "collector" manufactured artifacts supposedly mentioning Jesus and the Temple of Solomon on them. Both the biological and spiritual hoaxes were perpetuated by dispicable people preying on people's desire to believe. Some in evolution, and some in religion.

Ok, the was that you are backing up to quartz and polypeptides, and using them to say that life is chemically possible by itself is amazing. It's gone from "life came from minerals", to "Minerals are life, in and of themselves." I have the feeling that I've got you a bit on the run, which you probably don't mind. It offers you the chance to do some research of your own. Also, proteins are NOT life, merely the building blocks of it. Life, in it's SIMPLEST form is an amazingly complex arrangement of proteins.





This next part is for REALITYCHECK. I think you need one. Sorry, I couldn't resist. LOL. Anyhow, oxygen is still present and necessary for function in the Fumeroles. They simply have a way to process it combined to the sulfur. Enough, said. I may go into more detail on this later, if you so wish.





Alrighty guys,

Seeker

To Seeker

I had to take a break my arm was tired(those machettes are heavy and this jungle of misinformation is mighty thick)




You ,by this one statement, have proven you know NOTHING about the subject.Anaerobic bacteria are everywhere from fermentation tanks making methane from animal waste to bacteria living miles underground, eating away at the very granite you are standing on. Whats more the plankton in the oceans would be perfectly happy in an atmosphere with no free oxygen. CO2 and methane are belched out in massive quantities by every volcano on earth. add O2 to methane in the presence of that kind of heat and you get water vapor and CO2.. and some pretty flame effects. Pour some pure iron microfine powder on the table and, before your eyes it will combine with the free O2 in the air, creating iron oxide(rust,what iron ore is made from). Go to the kitchen, get a steel wool pad( not pure iron, but good enough) with no soap on it, light it with a match, drop it the sink before it burns your fingers(be quick). Oxygen is the most reactive chemical most of us deal with every day(Florine, Chlorine and others are more reactive but rarely or never(florine) seen in a pure atomic form)

QUOTE

However, life is NEVER found apart from oxygen.