.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Pinkiebee
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pinkiebee
-
-
Just now, DarianF said:
The first replicators ( https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/pdf/S0169-5347(20)30003-3.pdf ), which led to the first life.
Also, here is some discussion on the emergence of RNA:
If you want a bit more of a literature review, see this publication ( specific chapter linked here: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11919/chapter/7 ).
My god man. You have some stuff booked marked.
Cheers on my list
-
Just now, zarkov said:
Let me put it another way.
We are on a lump of rock, a primordial soup.
At the beginning of time (if such a thing exists)
...the first form of life supposedly was what?
???????????????????????????????????????
Well rock and iron and a bit of lead gold etc
There was no actual soup involved. Its was quite a bit later than the beginning of time
But other than that good try
-
6 minutes ago, zarkov said:
again it is proposal rather than evidential as self stated.
using terms such as "theory" as opposed to "hypothesis" in which it should be correctly couched is misleading and lends credence where none is due.
Yes, I comprehend what you say. You referred to material that passes through the organism whereas I refer to the organism itself. Need I repeat the word contradiction.
I didn't realise however that I was banging on. It rather seemed the converse.
Thanks all the same and have a nice day.
No I was referring to energy. And its conversion from one form to another. Which is short hand for entropy as that's rather what the process consists of .
Please dont repeat the word contradiction as there isnt one
-
Just now, DarianF said:
Here's an interesting talk you may like:
Il watch that later. Thanks.
-
37 minutes ago, zarkov said:
The contradiction is that life appears on the whole to be suited to warm conditions where entropy would be at its greatest!
According to that description as temperature decreases entropy also decreases. Contradicting life on this earth.
The Cambrian explosion occurred during relative temperature increases and co2 abundance!
Like most scientism the argument is modified to the goal post location.
I keep telling you life doesn't contradiction entropy. In fact it speeds it up.
I'm not sure why you keep banging on regardless
The fact there was life about when he wrote the law is a fair clue
-
Just now, kj35 said:
It matters to the fire brigade and the salvage yards
Lithium ion is a totally different chemical reaction
A total joke.
Initially potentially.
Agreed
I don't actially need to do anything of the sort. I corrected your misassumptions. Petrol needs an ignition source. The thing that is scary about lithium ion batteries, especially when they start being produced at scale is their propensity to spontaneously combust with no obvious source.
What do you mean initially. Petrol has an energy density 100 x lithium per kg
40 gallons is about 200kg that's a little less than half the weight of a battery which makes it 50 times more explosive. I know which I'd sooner be closer to
-
2 hours ago, kj35 said:
A fire blanket will do absolutely nothing in a lithium ion fire as oxygen is not needed in an exothermic chemical reaction thermal runaway fire. You may be confusing lithium metal batteries with li ion. Several things are postulated as causes for li ion fires, manufacturing defects, component defect, overcharging etc .but no real cause is pinpointed in the well made well built battery. Yet they still have fires. The very fact that you suggest a fire blanket or think that 40 gallons of petrol which will eventually burn itself out compared to a thermal runaway fire in a tesla battery which could burn or reignite for weeks after shows a lack of understanding this topic.
It doesnt really matter if it reignited 6 weeks later it wont be parked in my drive by that time .
Lithium is a metal! what distinction are you making
The fire blanket was a joke. The comparison with the considerably more explosive 40 gallons of petrol was not
Nether are a good idea if your in them. Near them or parked in your garage
In order to progress this point you need to show that electric cars are inherently more like to go up than petrol. Which may be true. I dont know and never I suspect do you
-
Just now, DaleP said:
Irony.l
Just out of interest do you know the british were shelling there own people during the london blitz and blaming the germans. This may or may not have been on purpose but if it was accidental they knew it was happening and kept doing it
-
1 minute ago, ink said:
This place is a narrative .... if you consider it a 'flat earth' then I suggest that you continue on your path .... by the same 'token' .... if you consider this 'place' a globe then I suggest you continue on your path!
There definitively not an ice wall round earth. Thete way be one round the universe. But entropy would melt it over time so every thing could fire off at any second
-
Just now, zarkov said:
aren't laws universal?
Well they are likely to be universal in this universe which may or may not be the only one
But reading between the lines. I dont think it says what you think it does in any universe .
Which means we are likely to be at cross purposes. With your understanding not at all fitting with the explination I'm giving of why life doesnt contradict a universal law
-
22 minutes ago, ink said:
Is not this universe a 'closed' system though?
It's rather hard to say until we see the edge or ice wall
-
Just now, zarkov said:
Seems like conflation.
The organism still is conversely extant in relation to the law of entropy.
A contradiction cannot apply to a universal law can it ?
Perhaps if you quote the universal law it would be clearer. I'm not sure it says what you think it says
-
Just now, Morpheus said:
Good for you.
Thanks
-
Just now, Morpheus said:
In your opinion I'm wrong.
No im pretty sure you were wrong.
-
Just now, Morpheus said:
If you cannot recognise sarcasm maybe it's best that we don't engage any further.
I'm fine with that. But just for the record how did it meet the defintion of sarcasm.
Sarcasm isnt the same as just being wrong
-
Just now, Morpheus said:
One that wants people to believe we've evolved from monkies.
So why did they want it to be younger in previous estimates?
Nb we are not descended from monkeys. At least learn enough to put up a fair fight
-
Just now, ink said:
All of which have been funded by concerns who wished for a particular result .... and only the 'correct' result gets published.
All those who did not find the 'correct' result .... no more funding and no more job!
What concern would want the earth to be say 4 and half billion years old and why ?
And why did they want it to be younger before that ?
-
Just now, ink said:
And I am happy to educate you :)
So .... I will make a claim that this 'world' is .... let me see .... 50 years old!
Now the same as you .... I cannot prove that claim .... But I am happy to 'guide' you and 'educate' you .... in childish terms if that helps .... but no, it is not for me to prove my research :)
I'm fine with your claim. Well I would be if I hadnt lived longer than that which does make it seem slightly unlikely. Maybe a parallel universe of some type
-
Just now, zarkov said:
I thought the Physical Law of entropy was evident and derived from observation of matter transitioning from a state of order to disorder.
Life it appears moves from a matter state of disorder to a state of order.
Is life exempt from the laws of thermodynamics?
I've just explained a few posts back. I'm now not sure if you havent read it or failed to comprehend it..
Which leaves me in a quandary on how to answer.
-
1 minute ago, ink said:
Oh no it isn't .... Oh yes it is .... Oh no it isn't .... Oh yes it is .... etc
I return to the initial question I asked .... Prove the 4 billion years?
Sorry to have point out the obvious ! But" prove 4 billion years" is not a question, even if you put a ? at the end
-
Just now, ink said:
Give a go at showing some actual proof!
Im guy sat in his home having a chat about things on the internet
I'm prepared to help you. It's not fair to make me responsible for educating you.
It's like giving guitar lessons I advise, you practice on your own
I can work google for you if your strugling
-
Just now, ink said:
On this discussion thread .... Yes it is!
No it really isnt
-
Just now, ink said:
So no actual proof .... but you are happy to 'guide' me out of the 'maze' I am in?
And do that so a 'child' could understand?
Im beginning to think I may have to dumb it down a bit more than that.
But hell il give it ago
-
Just now, Morpheus said:
No, I'm really not. You're failing to provide any proof of your 'THEORY'.
What makes me laugh is the very person who's forum this is hates Richard Dawkins and doesn't believe in evolutionary 'THEORY' either.
I think the evolutionists should listen to our Dave about what he thinks about human evolution.
Its a) not a theory b) not my theory and c) not my job to prove it to you.
Theory of evolution
in Nature Of Reality
Posted
I think you most probably could build a wall throwing stones. It wouldnt be very high and a bit wonky. But a wall never the less.